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)

mongoXZ Jul 6, 2007 6:41 AM

. . .and I wonder where exactly in downtown would this HSR station be. Perhaps in some grand tower complex in the big lot where the Ballpark Village is slated to be. . .right across from the MTS (trolley transit) building. *Dreams on*

bmfarley Jul 6, 2007 7:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 2937021)
. . .and I wonder where exactly in downtown would this HSR station be. Perhaps in some grand tower complex in the big lot where the Ballpark Village is slated to be. . .right across from the MTS (trolley transit) building. *Dreams on*

That's something that HAS to be revisited!

The adopted prefered alternative had it at Santa Fe Depot. I don't know how that is going to happen unless it was all below ground... or 2 elevated tracks and 2 below grade. Remember, HSR is suppose to be totally grade separated... so nothing running across streets.

I reviewed some of their reports online and note that the station needs to accomodate as many as 4 trains. A maintenance facility is suppose to go somewhere up near Miramar.

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

sandiego_urban Jul 6, 2007 7:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 2936739)
Where in Oceanside exactly does it terminate? Downtown Oceanside or Southern Oceanside??

I'm not familiar with Oceanside, but here's the entire route map. It's good to see that it will have stops at Palomar College and Cal State-San Marcos

Western Route
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...sc/leftmap.jpg

Eastern Route
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...c/rightmap.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley
Light rail, like the Trolley, would not be very successful up I-15 for several reasons. The biggest challenges are probably lack of population density, its demographic make-up, and that light-rail cannot get up to the speeds necessary to make travel times attractive. Sprinter type vehicles would be an improvement, but likely not enough.

I agree that the Trolley wouldn't do well for the reasons you stated above. Another negative for the trolley is the rugged topography in the area. I do, however, think that a commuter train (like the Coaster or Sprinter) would do well there. I work in Sorrento Valley and know people who commute to the area via the Coaster and love it. The various shuttle stops in vicinity seem to make getting to and from the Coaster station convenient.

That said, I think a commuter rail along the 15 would be attractive to people who work in employment centers of Kearny Mesa, Miramar, Mira Mesa, Poway and Mission Valley. It could end in Mission Valley and from there people could take express buses straight to downtown. How's that for a plan? ;)

Regarding HSR - I'd much rather see it go thru OC and connect to Irvine, than have it go thru Riverside. I guess the proposed line would benefit people who live in Temecula?

ucsbgaucho Jul 6, 2007 6:11 PM

I'm just surprised that, after 15 years of growth, there's really no talk of some type of train between Temecula and San Diego via I-15. You'd think with how exponentially that area's been growing, and it's been very steady and very obvious the whole time, that they haven't been able to figure out how to make it feasible. They are just now barely starting to come up with how to get Metrolink from Corona down to the Temecula area, so that's another 20 years away from fruition.

mello Jul 6, 2007 8:27 PM

^^^ I know basically Southern California is f*cked things will take too long to get built and progress will come way too late. Look at Metrolink it goes to Palmdale and Riverside for Christ Sakes and serving Valencia (Santa Clarita) too!

I have always said that Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Elsinore is like San Diego's Valencia. The far northern "oh houses are cheap there" part of the metro are. Temecula is exactly to San Diego what Valencia/Canyon Country is to LA. And they have freaking rail. San Diego is pathetic. :rolleyes:

spoonman Jul 6, 2007 9:32 PM

Why spend transportation dollars on a system to transport people to and from the temecula area? I'd rather the dollars be spent on projects in the city than to encourage more people to move out to Temecula and create sprawl.

On another subject, I'm annoyed that the San Diego segment must go through Riverside first before stopping here. I don't know how often many of you travel to and from Orange County, but I do it all the time and it's as busy as any inner city freeway. It's retarded for the planners not to notice that the connection between San Diego and Orange County is imperitive because it is so heavily traveled. There are tons of people who work here and live there and vice-a-versa.

sandiegodweller Jul 6, 2007 11:33 PM

Gaylord: We're Outta Here
 
Officials in Chula Vista are holding a news conference at 4 p.m. today to announce that Gaylord Entertainment has notified the city it will withdraw from its planned $1 billion bay-front development.

"They are no longer pursuing the bay-front project," said Irene McCormack, the spokeswoman for the Unified Port of San Diego.

The company has sent a letter to the city outlining the move; we haven't gotten a copy of it yet. A Gaylord spokesman confirmed that the company had sent the withdrawal letter but declined further comment.

"The letter will stand as a statement from the company," Gaylord spokesman Brian Abrahamson said.

The Gaylord proposal called for a recreational and hospitality complex, including a 400,000-square-foot convention center, one of the county's largest hotels, about 2,000 condos that would tower up to 200 feet high, a modernized marina and a signature park.

But stalled labor negotiations have imperiled the convention center and hotel project. Local organized labor groups and Gaylord couldn't reach an agreement before a Gaylord-imposed June 30 deadline. Chula Vista officials have tried this week to get the two sides back at the table -- without any apparent success.

Stay tuned for more on this breaking development.

bmfarley Jul 6, 2007 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2938102)
Why spend transportation dollars on a system to transport people to and from the temecula area? I'd rather the dollars be spent on projects in the city than to encourage more people to move out to Temecula and create sprawl.

On another subject, I'm annoyed that the San Diego segment must go through Riverside first before stopping here. I don't know how often many of you travel to and from Orange County, but I do it all the time and it's as busy as any inner city freeway. It's retarded for the planners not to notice that the connection between San Diego and Orange County is imperitive because it is so heavily traveled. There are tons of people who work here and live there and vice-a-versa.

I agree on both counts. As for high speed rail not going up the coast and directly through Orange County... blame local leaders of our coastal communities right here in San Diego County. They are the ones that objected to HSR thr their communities due to the local impacts... visual obstruction by catenary, need to widen the corridor, etc.

But, trains do travel up and downt the coast already. Amtrak goes straight through... and the Coaster goes all the way up to Oceanside while Metrolink comes down to the same place. It's not perfect... but it's there.

Derek Jul 7, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 2938318)
Officials in Chula Vista are holding a news conference at 4 p.m. today to announce that Gaylord Entertainment has notified the city it will withdraw from its planned $1 billion bay-front development.

"They are no longer pursuing the bay-front project," said Irene McCormack, the spokeswoman for the Unified Port of San Diego.

The company has sent a letter to the city outlining the move; we haven't gotten a copy of it yet. A Gaylord spokesman confirmed that the company had sent the withdrawal letter but declined further comment.

"The letter will stand as a statement from the company," Gaylord spokesman Brian Abrahamson said.

The Gaylord proposal called for a recreational and hospitality complex, including a 400,000-square-foot convention center, one of the county's largest hotels, about 2,000 condos that would tower up to 200 feet high, a modernized marina and a signature park.

But stalled labor negotiations have imperiled the convention center and hotel project. Local organized labor groups and Gaylord couldn't reach an agreement before a Gaylord-imposed June 30 deadline. Chula Vista officials have tried this week to get the two sides back at the table -- without any apparent success.

Stay tuned for more on this breaking development.

That's too bad. :(

Chula Vista could've used a project like that.

sandiegodweller Jul 7, 2007 5:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2938479)
That's too bad. :(

Chula Vista could've used a project like that.

Screw the Unions. Just for spite, the Port should tear out that pineapple dock next to the new Hilton and put the Chargers Stadium there.

spoonman Jul 7, 2007 5:56 AM

Since you mentioned Dole...

Dole Fruit moved its receiving operations to San Diego from LA/Long Beach a couple years ago. Its a perfect example of San Diego picking up more slack that LA can't handle for various reasons. I think of a new airport in the same light. Our city could benefit immensely from a new airport with increased air cargo capacity by picking up a lot of slack from LAX. Our city is too short sighted though to realize the long term benefit of this.

PadreHomer Jul 7, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2938973)
Since you mentioned Dole...

Dole Fruit moved its receiving operations to San Diego from LA/Long Beach a couple years ago. Its a perfect example of San Diego picking up more slack that LA can't handle for various reasons. I think of a new airport in the same light. Our city could benefit immensely from a new airport with increased air cargo capacity by picking up a lot of slack from LAX. Our city is too short sighted though to realize the long term benefit of this.

How about a cargo airport at Brown Field?! :)

Oh...

spoonman Jul 7, 2007 9:24 AM

^For many of the same reasons we aren't putting a passenger airport there...

mongoXZ Jul 7, 2007 2:18 PM

That's very unfortunate about the cancelled Chula Vista Bayfront project. Having a potential of bringing thousands of jobs to that abandoned area as well as bringing billions of dollars to the South Bay only to be killed by something minor like a labor dispute is absolutely ridiculoso.

Sucks to be you, Chulajuana.

sandiego_urban Jul 7, 2007 5:12 PM

There are some funny quotes in this article. The architect should just include 2 domes at the base and call it a day :haha:



Designer Will 'Tone Down' Tower Over Criticism

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...3/tower250.jpg

Consultant had called structure 'very phallic'

By Jeanette Steele
STAFF WRITER FOR THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE

July 7, 2007

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and two beholders – one of them a government agency's architect – have very different views of a 40-story residential tower proposed at a gateway to downtown San Diego.

Sandor Shapery says his design is like a flower. A consultant to the Centre City Development Corp. says it looks like a giant phallus.

The Shapery proposal, a 160-unit hotel and condominium tower, was supposed to go before the downtown redevelopment agency for initial feedback this month. But the developer asked for a postponement, saying he will “revisit” and perhaps “tone down” the design because he doesn't want to offend anyone.

Shapery, however, said he disagrees with the criticism. He said he wanted to create an “organic form,” which is how flower petals came to mind.

“If it looks like a phallic symbol, someone has a strange perception,” said Shapery, a San Diego-based developer. “You can find sex anywhere if you want to. . . . There's just some sick people out there.”


Gwynne Pugh, a Santa Monica architect hired by the downtown redevelopment agency to review building designs, has questioned whether the design is right for the city. The location, at 11th Avenue and A Street, is a prominent spot as a downtown entrance from state Route 163.

“With its rounded forms and swelling of the uppermost floors . . . this building structure is very phallic,” Pugh wrote in his critique of the project.

Some downtown residents seem to agree with Pugh. At one public meeting on the design, comments from the audience included “appalled” and “too iconic.” Someone compared it to Las Vegas architecture.

Shapery is no stranger to big, and at times controversial, developments downtown.

The lawyer-turned-developer built Emerald Plaza on West Broadway – the towers with green neon lights circling them at night – and the W Hotel at State and B streets.

Emerald Plaza had critics when it was proposed in the 1980s, Shapery said.

Some architects labeled it “pretentious” and “discordant” with its surroundings, according to a 1987 San Diego Union story. The newspaper's architecture critic wrote, “The building looks like a futuristic experiment, which is a fine thing on the drafting board but may look peculiar along staid Broadway.”

The architect for Emerald Plaza and Shapery's new tower is C.W. Kim of La Jolla.

Kim said the goal was to create a unique building. “You know, it's the mediocre buildings that anyone can do. Anyone can do a square building,” Kim said.

Shapery said the brouhaha about the proposed tower's look is obscuring the more significant topic: The shape goes hand-in-hand with the project's energy-conservation goals.

The developer wants the inside of the building to have multiple functions. For example, the plan is to use ice blocks in the air conditioning system, then recycle the melted water for use in the swimming pool, laundry and irrigation.

“The whole concept is it's really an organic form with no angles. Everything is flowing and rounded,” Shapery said. “People aren't really looking at what the building is really about.”



Looking at the rendering here, it's apparent that it's already been toned down once before
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...rojectsst9.png

sandiego_urban Jul 7, 2007 5:24 PM

It's too bad about the Gaylord Project :(



Bayfront Development Deal Crumbles Over Labor Impasse

Company pulls out of Chula Vista project

By Tanya Mannes and David Washburn
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS

July 7, 2007

A redevelopment deal that would have erased decades of failure to build up the Chula Vista bayfront – and made the city a big player in the national convention business – is dead.

Citing an inability to reach an agreement with local unions after more than a year of negotiations, Gaylord Entertainment said yesterday that it will no longer pursue a plan to build a $1 billion hotel and convention center on the city's long-vacant bayfront.

The Tennessee company's decision marked a stunning reversal of fortune for a deal that Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox just months ago called “the most realistic and realizable plan for the bayfront that I've seen in more than 30 years.”

While Cox and other city officials joined Gaylord in blaming unions for the deal's demise, local labor leaders, along with Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, said the company's intractable negotiating stance and Cox's poor leadership led to its unraveling.

Cox said Gaylord CEO Colin Reed called her yesterday afternoon from Nashville to tell her the news.

“He said he cannot subject his company to the disruption and blackmail of organized labor and must move on,” she said during a hastily arranged news conference on the steps of City Hall. “This opportunity has now been chased away.”

Labor leaders, in their own telephone news conference, said they had made numerous concessions in recent weeks, and in the end had required only that Gaylord hire workers – and not necessarily union workers – from the San Diego area.

“We are disappointed that Gaylord Entertainment has abandoned this project because we weren't willing to sacrifice local men and women,” said Tom Lemmon, business manager for the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council.

“It is Gaylord's choice,” he said. “They are walking away because they are not willing to build a project that works for the entire community.”

Since Gaylord approached Chula Vista in 2005, city and Port of San Diego officials have touted the project's potential benefits: a 10 percent boost in city revenue; 3,000 new, permanent jobs; and a springboard for other commercial and residential development.

“After over a year of unproductive discussions with the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council, we have concluded that their unwavering, unreasonable demands render the project unfeasible for our company and our shareholders,” the letter states.

Gaylord wasn't required to reach a labor agreement with the unions, but Westbrook said in the letter that without a deal, “the Trades Council, working in conjunction with the Environmental Health Coalition, has made it clear that it will take steps to disrupt the project” through lawsuits and bad publicity.

Lemmon and Jennifer Badgley, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said Gaylord, not the unions, refused to negotiate in good faith.

They said the unions made a series of concessions in recent months concerning union labor on the project, and only refused to budge on the requirement that Gaylord hire local workers.

“At the end of the day, it came down to Gaylord's unwillingness to commit to local hires,” Lemmon said.

Joining the union leaders were Filner and Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition.

Labor “went more than halfway” and shouldn't take the fall, Filner said. He blamed Cox and other elected leaders for letting the deal slip away.

“I was shocked that it was only labor fighting for the jobs, not the political leaders,” Filner said. “The city of Chula Vista was looking for a scapegoat, not to take a leadership role.”

Since the early 1970s, South Bay leaders have tried but failed to clean up and develop 550 acres of largely port-owned industrial and marsh land that stretches from the Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Refuge to just south of the South Bay Power Plant.

Gaylord's project would have been huge, with up to 2,000 hotel rooms and 400,000 square feet of convention space that would have bordered on new public parks.

After a year of preliminary talks, Gaylord entered formal negotiations with Chula Vista and port officials in July 2006 regarding the terms of a $308 million public subsidy, probably paid through bonds and revenue generated by the development.

At the same time, the company began talking with labor groups about a projected 6,500 construction jobs.

Westbrook said the unions insisted on bidding restrictions that would have increased the building cost by $50 million to $75 million. The restrictions would have prevented the company from seeking nonunion bids on most jobs, he said.

Lemmon and Badgley called Westbrook's statements “inaccurate.”

Lemmon said union leaders were willing to relax the bidding restrictions that Westbrook called deal-breakers. He also said they were ready to take out “the union security clause,” which would have guaranteed that project workers be unionized.

Lemmon and Badgley said Gaylord officials spent little time in the room during the final negotiating session June 29, and in the end walked out without saying anything.

“We clearly do not deserve the onus of responsibility for Gaylord deciding not to build here,” Badgley said.

Cox said the city and Port Commission remained neutral in the labor talks until last week, when Gaylord's June 30 deadline passed without an agreement. This week, she said, officials tried but failed to reopen negotiations.

“Reasonable people acting responsibly should have been able to work something out,” Cox said yesterday.

In a telephone interview, Westbrook said the company's decision was difficult – and final.

“We've been overwhelmed by the support we've received in the Chula Vista community and the San Diego region,” he said. “We're very disappointed in this outcome.”

Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce CEO Lisa Cohen, who has been a vocal booster of the project, was distraught that a “golden opportunity” was lost.

“It's a sad day for Chula Vista,” she said at the news conference with Cox. “We opened our arms to Gaylord, we were very excited, and now we're devastated and shocked.”

Port Commissioner Mike Bixler said the demise of the deal is “an economic tragedy for the South Bay and San Diego County.”

Other officials expressed regret, but said they remain hopeful that another developer will come along for Chula Vista.

Possible candidates could include John Moores' JMI Realty and Manchester Resorts, owned by Doug Manchester, both of which submitted bids that lost out to Gaylord's.

JMI President John Kratzer said he wasn't surprised the deal fell through, given its scope and the difficulty of developing in California. He said JMI might consider resubmitting its earlier, “less ambitious” proposal.

“I think we will have to let all this settle down and shake out,” Kratzer said. “But if the port and the city decide they want to solicit new proposals, we would certainly re-evaluate our proposal.”

A representative for Manchester Resorts didn't return a call for comment.

The San Diego Chargers organization is looking for sites for a new stadium and has focused on land in Chula Vista and Oceanside. Cox said it's too early to speculate as to whether Gaylord's announcement will affect that search.

Port Commission Chairwoman Sylvia Rios issued a statement in which she said the announcement was “devastating,” but that she won't give up.

“We must now look to the future,” Rios said. “It is only prudent that the port and the city of Chula Vista begin a review of alternatives to attract another anchor project that will act as an economic catalyst for the bayfront plan.”

Derek Jul 7, 2007 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 2938958)
Screw the Unions. Just for spite, the Port should tear out that pineapple dock next to the new Hilton and put the Chargers Stadium there.

I agree. ;)

Derek Jul 7, 2007 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiego_urban (Post 2939445)



Yucky! The base is horrid and the rest is, well, gross.:yuck:

bmfarley Jul 7, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2939467)
Yucky! The base is horrid and the rest is, well, gross.:yuck:

It looks ridiculous! Either from the 1960's... or from the Jetson's... I can't decide which.

sandiego_urban Jul 7, 2007 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley
It looks ridiculous! Either from the 1960's... or from the Jetson's... I can't decide which.

I'm thinking Jetsons

Contrary to what I said about the earlier version, for some reason , this one doesn't bother me as much. Yes, despite it being covered in balconies :shrug:

The "flesh-colored vein" going up the shaft needs some work, as well as the base, but the shape is okay. I love how someone in the article called it "too iconic" - is there really such a thing?

Let's hope we'll see a revised version soon.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:20 AM.

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