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 Apr 4, 2007 6:23 AM

With regard to land use, I've heard from a legitimate source that the FAA has no power what-so-ever. The FAA is merely an advisory board. The city really does have the ultimate say so. The FAA only has two options in any situation. 1) Close the airport, or 2) Work around the problem. Since the city approved these buildings already, the only way these 2 floors will ever come down is with a city mandate. If that happens, the city will owe Sunroad a hell of a lot of money for their fuck-up. I don't know if any of you know, but there are two more towers scheduled to start construction there. This is the shortest one. They are to be 12, 14, and 16 floors. I believe the others are on the opposite side of the 12 floor tower in relation to the airport, so they may be ok, but I'm not sure.

Derek Apr 4, 2007 6:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2742005)
With regard to land use, I've heard from a legitimate source that the FAA has no power what-so-ever. The FAA is merely an advisory board. The city really does have the ultimate say so. The FAA only has two options in any situation. 1) Close the airport, or 2) Work around the problem. Since the city approved these buildings already, the only way these 2 floors will ever come down is with a city mandate. If that happens, the city will owe Sunroad a hell of a lot of money for their fuck-up. I don't know if any of you know, but there are two more towers scheduled to start construction there. This is the shortest one. They are to be 12, 14, and 16 floors. I believe the others are on the opposite side of the 12 floor tower in relation to the airport, so they may be ok, but I'm not sure.

good report:tup:

Derek Apr 4, 2007 6:26 AM

from CCDC :tup:

SAN DIEGO, CA— Downtown San Diego’s Ballpark and Neighborhood Revitalization Project was chosen as one of 23 finalists for the 2007 Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Awards for Excellence from among a broad mix of projects – 167 in all – from North and South America. A jury panel will review all finalists and select up to 10 to receive awards at ULI’s International Conference to be held this May in Chicago.

dl3000 Apr 4, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2742005)
With regard to land use, I've heard from a legitimate source that the FAA has no power what-so-ever. The FAA is merely an advisory board. The city really does have the ultimate say so. The FAA only has two options in any situation. 1) Close the airport, or 2) Work around the problem. Since the city approved these buildings already, the only way these 2 floors will ever come down is with a city mandate. If that happens, the city will owe Sunroad a hell of a lot of money for their fuck-up. I don't know if any of you know, but there are two more towers scheduled to start construction there. This is the shortest one. They are to be 12, 14, and 16 floors. I believe the others are on the opposite side of the 12 floor tower in relation to the airport, so they may be ok, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, like that damn parking structure right under the approach, I think that thing alone bumps back the runway approach a couple hundred feet, and the FAA didnt do anything about it except shorten the usable landing runway. Based on what spoonman mentioned and what you see, it seems that if San Diego wants to keep using Lindbergh, then they cant mess with the airspace in the vicinity because then the FAA would render it useless and then the city is forced to get a new airport. That would be an awesome tactic lol, but Im just guessing here.

<ak/> Apr 4, 2007 8:09 AM

Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge
 
some updates on the bridge situation:
http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resour...ian_Bridge.pdf

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...a/dt/hdpb2.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...a/dt/hdpb1.jpg

Derek Apr 4, 2007 1:43 PM

i cant wait for that thing to get underway:tup:

Urban Sky Apr 4, 2007 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2742005)
With regard to land use, I've heard from a legitimate source that the FAA has no power what-so-ever. The FAA is merely an advisory board. The city really does have the ultimate say so. The FAA only has two options in any situation. 1) Close the airport, or 2) Work around the problem. Since the city approved these buildings already, the only way these 2 floors will ever come down is with a city mandate. If that happens, the city will owe Sunroad a hell of a lot of money for their fuck-up. I don't know if any of you know, but there are two more towers scheduled to start construction there. This is the shortest one. They are to be 12, 14, and 16 floors. I believe the others are on the opposite side of the 12 floor tower in relation to the airport, so they may be ok, but I'm not sure.

At least they havent started construction on the other two yet.

That's interesting info on the FAA. For some reason I thought they had more say because of set height restrictions and all. The city really screwed this one up and now they are trying to make it seem like the builder is the one in the wrong when all theyve done is keep it legal. I heard a representative from the Pilots Association saying (on the news) that they are working with the FAA on this one and for now have informed pilots about the building (as if they hadn't noticed it) and told them to "fly around it". I thought that was a funny statement. You can even see that in the picture I posted with the news story, the building isn't even in the flight path.

Anyway, it's good news that the FAA isn't the Iron Fist I thought they were. That means the city better get crackin on raising those height restrictions in east village (at least)!

eburress Apr 4, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 2741833)
first of all, i called her crypt keeper above and you tisk-tisked me for it. next, i thought you liked donna frye. and last...shes never going to win an election. so weve got nothing to worry about there.

but :haha: re: the highway miles comment

Oh you did? I totally missed it!! hahaha I didn't mean to steal your stuff! :)

Urban Sky Apr 4, 2007 6:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2742598)
Oh you did? I totally missed it!! hahaha I didn't mean to steal your stuff! :)

no no, i dont mind. i just thought you liked Donna Frye..thats why i said something.

Derek Apr 4, 2007 9:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 2742433)

Anyway, it's good news that the FAA isn't the Iron Fist I thought they were. That means the city better get crackin on raising those height restrictions in east village (at least)!

at least someone agrees;)

eburress Apr 4, 2007 10:53 PM

It's exciting to think that other buildings might soon go up in that Kearny Mesa area. Outside of a few small pockets, there's not much height in SD, but it's nice to see that might change.

Derek Apr 4, 2007 10:58 PM

^we need more in Mission Valley!! id love to see more highrises there!

eburress Apr 4, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2743445)
^we need more in Mission Valley!! id love to see more highrises there!

I guess that would be OK, but since stuff can't be taller than the valley's rim, it makes me wonder what's the point. hahaha

Derek Apr 4, 2007 11:48 PM

^id sacrifice density for height in that neighborhood anyday;)

HurricaneHugo Apr 5, 2007 12:54 AM

how tall is the valleys rim anyways?

Urban Sky Apr 5, 2007 1:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 2743689)
how tall is the valleys rim anyways?

its about 380 feet ASL on both sides where most of the highrises are. the valley floor is 50ft above sea level so that would make the maximum building height approx. 330ft. thats still a good sized tower.

ive never heard that rule before. where did you hear that the buildings had to be below the rim?

Urban Sky Apr 5, 2007 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2743565)
^id sacrifice density for height in that neighborhood anyday;)

id rather see any and all highrises built downtown. in fact, id like to transplant some of the cool ones from mission valley and sorrento mesa to downtown.

eburress Apr 5, 2007 1:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 2743721)
its about 380 feet ASL on both sides where most of the highrises are. the valley floor is 50ft above sea level so that would make the maximum building height approx. 330ft. thats still a good sized tower.

ive never heard that rule before. where did you hear that the buildings had to be below the rim?

This came up sometime last year when some of us wondered why CalTrans didn't use some kind of suspension bridge for I-805 where it intersects with I-8. Besides the obvious cost issues, somebody said that there was an ordinance (or something along those lines) that limited the height of structures in Mission Valley.

Derek Apr 5, 2007 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 2743725)
id rather see any and all highrises built downtown. in fact, id like to transplant some of the cool ones from mission valley and sorrento mesa to downtown.

i gotta disagree, i think diversity is good, but i do agree with focusing highrise construction downtown

Derek Apr 5, 2007 2:13 AM

oops! i made a typo...i meant to say id sacrifice height for density in that neighborhood anyday;)




:(


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:29 PM.

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