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)

HurricaneHugo Nov 30, 2011 3:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 5496849)
First, no one enters the city, passes through or goes anywhere near where these wings are being proposed. Eiffel was a physical gateway where people walked under it to enter a fair with clearly defined spaces. Not the same at all. The wings aren't incorporated in the community plan, they're an awful after-that that goes against the community plan by obstructing view corridors.

And now that the fair is long gone what's it purpose to Parisians other than a landmark/tourist trap? Observation Deck? TV Antennas? Two things that can easily be incorporated to the Wings?

I mean really a gateway that's it? I understand World Fairs usually involve constructing some sort of landmark but calling its main purpose a gateway well...

And most people hated the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed

I think it's ridiculous to compare the Wings to the Eiffel Tower/Gateway Arch/Sydney Opera house but I think with some revisions and added functions it could be a landmark for San Diego.

SDfan Nov 30, 2011 4:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5498127)
And now that the fair is long gone what's it purpose to Parisians other than a landmark/tourist trap? Observation Deck? TV Antennas? Two things that can easily be incorporated to the Wings?

I mean really a gateway that's it? I understand World Fairs usually involve constructing some sort of landmark but calling its main purpose a gateway well...

And most people hated the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed

I think it's ridiculous to compare the Wings to the Eiffel Tower/Gateway Arch/Sydney Opera house but I think with some revisions and added functions it could be a landmark for San Diego.

I agree. I think its interesting that a lot of people who call themselves progressive, champions of changing this city's image as a backwater navy town hell-bent on maintaining our second tier status, are so ready to shoot down this proposal. I mean, I understand function. But does art have to serve some sort of purpose other then being art? Can art and architecture not be one and the same thing? Yeah I get it, its tall, and a sculpture, but come on, its as if the park, the amphitheater, and the parking that are a part of this project aren't enough. Give these people a break! At least they are trying to build something iconic instead of festering in the NIMBYism that has kept this city just above Tuscan in terms of grandeur (no offense to Tuscan).

I'm not saying we need a Sydney Opera House, or an Eiffel tower. But the hate for this piece is so reminiscent of the little-thinking's, small-town lovers who have kept San Diego down for decades.

Lets be a little more constructive.

After reading this forum these past few days I can see why we have been in the halls of San Jose and Tampa Bay...

SDfan Nov 30, 2011 4:39 AM

Quote:

Bullet train critics call for new vote
New business plan doesn't cover high-speed rail segment to San Diego

The new plan to build high-speed rail for California — for $98 billion — is more expensive than the original $45 billion project sold to voters in 2008.

It’s also shorter.

The financing plan only covers the first phase of the project, stopping in Anaheim instead of stretching south to San Diego.

Given the higher price tag, and shorter route in the financing plan, some local elected officials want the matter to return to voters.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...new-rail-vote/
Also, what do you all think about this article?

Lipani Nov 30, 2011 5:02 AM

If San Diego gets HSR by the time I retire I'd be shocked.

staplesla Dec 1, 2011 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 5498202)
Also, what do you all think about this article?

I don't understand why they aren't focusing on SD-LA first. It seems to me if they are truly looking to alleviate traffic HSR would be another alternative for an area that is already congested, and between California's two most populous cities. People routinely travel between LA-SD in large numbers, not between SF-LA. A starter line down here would cost less, and could be built faster.

202_Cyclist Dec 1, 2011 2:15 AM

staplesla:
"
Quote:

I don't understand why they aren't focusing on SD-LA first. It seems to me if they are truly looking to alleviate traffic HSR would be another alternative for an area that is already congested, and between California's two most populous cities. People routinely travel between LA-SD in large numbers, not between SF-LA. A starter line down here would cost less, and could be built faster.
The Surfliner route connecting Southern California is Amtrak's second busiest route, outside of the Northeast corridor.

http://amtrakcalifornia.com/index.cf...deral-funding/

Although it would have made perfect sense to build LA-San Diego first, there are several reasons why it wasn't picked. Planning was farther along for the Central Valley segment and the Recovery Act requires that construction begin by 2012. Land is also much cheaper in the Central Valley than coastal Orange County and San Diego, so limited Prop 1A and Recovery Act funding could literally go farther in the Central Valley. Unemployment is also significantly higher in the Central Valley than Southern California, and of course one of the goals of the Recovery Act is to reduce unemployment (which most economists agree it has done: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...Obama-stimulus).

bmfarley Dec 1, 2011 6:54 AM

I can provide two solid reasons why the Valley segement for the Los Angeles to San Francisco section was selected first, and not Los Angeles to San Diego.

1) The Valley provides a nice long straight and flat stretch of land to provide a test track. Mile for mile, it should also be cheaper. And, provide more options for a less costly maintenance and storage facility. A test track is ncessary for testing vehicles and burning them in, which is required before vehicles go into service. Each vehicles needs to be tested up to the planned top speed before they are 'commissioned' and go into service.

2) The Valley is in the center of the State and center of the planned system. It provides both geographic and political equity. Neither SoCal or NorCal is first... and being in the Valley provides the opportunity for political support for each end of the system to support double-ended extensions if pursued at the same time.

Yes, I agree LA to San Diego provides a logical answer if ridership alone were considered. But after taking other things into consideration, the Valley has a lot of merit too. Plus, San Diego really has not done itself any favors for earning consideration, has it? San Diego has not given the project more than luke-warm reception (routed miles inland versus the shorter coastal route), and, the answer for a terminal station is at Lindbergh Field - a location that does not get to downtown and has zero synergy with air travel into San Diego.

bmfarley Dec 1, 2011 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 5498202)
Also, what do you all think about this article?

The idea has no legs. The State and population is behind this project. A vocal minority is just that... vocal. Granted, some critical light on some of the project elements is needed... , but, does not make the project fatally flawed. The article is basically like many - the author clearly does not understand the project or its history and is also trying to match apples with oranges. Many politicians don't understand this project too. And, the LAO's office doesn't help either - no understanding of transportation systems and has no long term vision.

I think 90% of the problem with the project is poor perception developed from the miniscule public outreach and planning efforts in the early years of the project. The CHSRA has come off looking dumb or clumsy or stubborn. But, the CHSRA shouldn't be faulted too much. Why? Because the State legislature has not fully funded them for the planning phases. And, both progress and outreach have been hurt. For many years, as few as 5-7 State employees were actually employed by the State on this project... the rest being contracted out. Tell me.. how can 7 employees effectively manage so many contractors, or, the multiple and dollar laden contracts? Pffff... I say the State Legislator is the first party that has goofed on this project.

From a more macro perspective, a few essential things need to be taken into consideration before coming to any conclusions on the need for this project. First, the State is expected to grow from 39 million to 60 million by 2050. Statewide travel demand is expected to grow proprtionally. Less room is available for building freeways and airport expansions. Secondly, if there were room, the cost would be x2 to x3 times the cost of a more effecient high speed rail system. Thirdly, continuing to build roadways does nothing to wean ourselves away from our dependence on oil; which hurts the environment and sends American dollars out of this country to places that are hostile to us. We are also spending American blood to defend those same oil supply lines. Does this make any sense at all?

staplesla Dec 1, 2011 8:04 PM

In San Diego they want to build wings, in St. Petersburg it's a Big Wave.

http://inhabitat.com/big-makes-a-spl...st-petersburg/

tua21506 Dec 1, 2011 8:43 PM

going to visit your city...
 
I don't know if this is the right place to ask but, I will be coming to your city this month. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for things to do or places/neighborhoods to photograph. Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Again sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.

LosAngelesDreamin Dec 1, 2011 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 5499620)
I don't understand why they aren't focusing on SD-LA first. It seems to me if they are truly looking to alleviate traffic HSR would be another alternative for an area that is already congested, and between California's two most populous cities. People routinely travel between LA-SD in large numbers, not between SF-LA. A starter line down here would cost less, and could be built faster.

I agree... the bay area doesn't really need a high speed train because their cities are so close to each other.. the BART will take care of all that... as for SoCal?? more than half of CA's population live down here.. we need a new way to move the people faster and obviously expanding our highways isn't doing any help and won't in the future, adding more airport gates and runways to LAX and SAN will cost a lot more i would think. none have worked or will... HSR is proven and it works... just look at other countries in Asia and Europe. America is going down the pipe.. we're stuck in the 70's.. we think we're still on top of the game with our "American Invented" automobiles, highways and our suburbs. Not a good quality of life at all. We need to switch back to rail.. after all thats what jump started most cities.. with the streetcars, trains and grand stations.

ElDuderino Dec 2, 2011 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin (Post 5501052)
I agree... the bay area doesn't really need a high speed train because their cities are so close to each other.. the BART will take care of all that... as for SoCal?? more than half of CA's population live down here.. we need a new way to move the people faster and obviously expanding our highways isn't doing any help and won't in the future, adding more airport gates and runways to LAX and SAN will cost a lot more i would think. none have worked or will... HSR is proven and it works... just look at other countries in Asia and Europe. America is going down the pipe.. we're stuck in the 70's.. we think we're still on top of the game with our "American Invented" automobiles, highways and our suburbs. Not a good quality of life at all. We need to switch back to rail.. after all thats what jump started most cities.. with the streetcars, trains and grand stations.

That really doesn't make any sense at all. The Bay Area and LA are California's two largest population centers. Millions of people travel between the two each year, many do it multiple times. The whole point of the HSR is to link the two area to relieve future traffic and to give people an alternative to flying. HSR is not meant to be a commuter rail like BART. It just provides quick transportation between the major population centers. It would be nice to eventually have HSR between LA and SD, but it makes no sense to build that before LA to SF.

kpexpress Dec 2, 2011 2:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 5498200)
I agree. I think its interesting that a lot of people who call themselves progressive, champions of changing this city's image as a backwater navy town hell-bent on maintaining our second tier status, are so ready to shoot down this proposal. I mean, I understand function. But does art have to serve some sort of purpose other then being art? Can art and architecture not be one and the same thing? Yeah I get it, its tall, and a sculpture, but come on, its as if the park, the amphitheater, and the parking that are a part of this project aren't enough. Give these people a break! At least they are trying to build something iconic instead of festering in the NIMBYism that has kept this city just above Tuscan in terms of grandeur (no offense to Tuscan).

I'm not saying we need a Sydney Opera House, or an Eiffel tower. But the hate for this piece is so reminiscent of the little-thinking's, small-town lovers who have kept San Diego down for decades.

Lets be a little more constructive.

After reading this forum these past few days I can see why we have been in the halls of San Jose and Tampa Bay...

I'm all about pushing the boundaries and changing the city, some might say a target would go well there too. I think these wings are ugly and cheesy. They're completely blown out of scale, have no details, oh and DO NOTHING. Let's do something that will bring people to the waterfront like a sick museum like Oslo. We need progressive architecture that draws people to the city. We need a renewed Horton Plaza effect, and these wings won't do it. Look at yokohama, copenhagen, guangzhou, and shanghai. Legitimizing the wings post-rationalizing an antenna scheme is dumb. If we're going to do an antenna, then cool, let's do a sick-ass antenna with observation and lights....something that can be used as a celebration (I always see fireworks on the water in the summer). I think that whatever goes on that site must be part of a larger idea with the whole waterfront and city and it has to be super bold (big name designers). I am in SFO about to board my plane back to SD - I just spent a week in Beijing for work - I don't know why we're so afraid of doing some crazy amazing shit.

mongoXZ Dec 2, 2011 5:26 AM

LOL! This Wings of Freedom debate has somehow drifted into the US Cities discussions. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195811

As for me I'd like it for one minute and hate it the next. Kinda torn. I like the fact that it has gotten some attention throwing many into debate. Maybe a totally revamped design will come into fruition and maybe at a different location. The general consensus seems to be that it's a decent start, it reminds some of Milwaukee's "wings", and please don't call it WOF. . .

laguna Dec 2, 2011 5:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDuderino (Post 5501113)
That really doesn't make any sense at all. The Bay Area and LA are California's two largest population centers. Millions of people travel between the two each year, many do it multiple times. The whole point of the HSR is to link the two area to relieve future traffic and to give people an alternative to flying. HSR is not meant to be a commuter rail like BART. It just provides quick transportation between the major population centers. It would be nice to eventually have HSR between LA and SD, but it makes no sense to build that before LA to SF.

In case you just woke up from sleeping in your city college urban planning class, there is a train called Amtrak that travels from L.A. to the Bay Area.

Nobody rides it and it is heavily subsidized. The track was laid over a 100 years ago when land was cheap. I know that cost doesnt bother you dreamers but consider the cost of land, relocation and legal problems that would ensue today. In end you are left with a mode of transportation that people would not use. Planes are faster and cars are more convenient for the others.

I took Amtrak last year to SLO (thats San Luis Obisbo to you) and the train was a quaint and solitary experience, since it was practically empty. you probably forgot that trains stops at each town to board passengers, which makes it slow, just like the high speed train will be. You probably think it is going to zoom along at high speed from SoCal to Nocal-it doesnt work that way in the real world, unless you think nobody gets on or off along the way. You probably think that if it does stop tht it will just be for a moment like the Red Trolley. You probably forgot that each stop will require on and off loading of bags/passengers and that takes time.

202_Cyclist Dec 2, 2011 3:41 PM

laguna:
Quote:

In case you just woke up from sleeping in your city college urban planning class, there is a train called Amtrak that travels from L.A. to the Bay Area.

Nobody rides it and it is heavily subsidized. The track was laid over a 100 years ago when land was cheap. I know that cost doesnt bother you dreamers but consider the cost of land, relocation and legal problems that would ensue today. In end you are left with a mode of transportation that people would not use. Planes are faster and cars are more convenient for the others.

I took Amtrak last year to SLO (thats San Luis Obisbo to you) and the train was a quaint and solitary experience, since it was practically empty. you probably forgot that trains stops at each town to board passengers, which makes it slow, just like the high speed train will be. You probably think it is going to zoom along at high speed from SoCal to Nocal-it doesnt work that way in the real world, unless you think nobody gets on or off along the way. You probably think that if it does stop tht it will just be for a moment like the Red Trolley. You probably forgot that each stop will require on and off loading of bags/passengers and that takes time.
First, if you're going to question the intelligence of someone, at least get your spelling right (San Luis Obisbo--?).

Second, roads are also heavily subsidized. The federal highway trust fund has needed to be bailed out with $7B - $8B from the general fund each of the past four years (i.e. a subsidy for driving). User fees also barely pay for more than half of the cost of federally-funded roads (http://subsidyscope.org/transportati...ding/analysis/), meaning roads and driving are heavily subsidized. It is even worse with state and local roads, which are often paid for by property taxes, sales taxes, bonds, development impact fees, or other financing methods that have nothing to do with driving and are thus a subsidy for automobiles.

Third, if nobody rides Amtrak, why has Amtrak set ridership records every month for nearly the past two years? Ridership was up on Amtrak almost six percent last year, while vehicle miles traveled decreased by 1.7%. Just recently, Amtrak set another ridership record over the Thanksgiving weekend, with more than 720,000 passengers (http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...rship-numbers/). The Pacific Surfliner route, connecting LA and San Diego is also Amtrak's second busiest route, outside of the Northeast corridor.

Let's also not forget that federal transportation policy and funding is tilted heavily against passenger rail. Last year, more federal money was spent on highways than has been spent on Amtrak during its entire 40 year history combined.

Who needs facts, however, when you have your ideology.

IconRPCV Dec 2, 2011 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 5495493)
I would also recommend North Park - still kind of gritty, but definitely some cool art venues and a good vibe.

Don't forget Southpark and Kengsington.

ElDuderino Dec 2, 2011 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laguna (Post 5501466)
In case you just woke up from sleeping in your city college urban planning class, there is a train called Amtrak that travels from L.A. to the Bay Area.

Nobody rides it and it is heavily subsidized. The track was laid over a 100 years ago when land was cheap. I know that cost doesnt bother you dreamers but consider the cost of land, relocation and legal problems that would ensue today. In end you are left with a mode of transportation that people would not use. Planes are faster and cars are more convenient for the others.

I took Amtrak last year to SLO (thats San Luis Obisbo to you) and the train was a quaint and solitary experience, since it was practically empty. you probably forgot that trains stops at each town to board passengers, which makes it slow, just like the high speed train will be. You probably think it is going to zoom along at high speed from SoCal to Nocal-it doesnt work that way in the real world, unless you think nobody gets on or off along the way. You probably think that if it does stop tht it will just be for a moment like the Red Trolley. You probably forgot that each stop will require on and off loading of bags/passengers and that takes time.

I actually graduated from Stanford, and I am a city planner, but good guess ;). I used to take Amtrak quite often to travel down to Santa Barbara and LA. It would consistently take 12-13 hours for the trip. That's not because of the stops (it would only stop for a few minutes) it was because the trains were so damn slow, especially though SLO.

The HSR will make a longer trip from SF to LA in under three hours, and that's taking the stops into consideration. I would much rather make that trip than a 13 hour Amtrak ride, or a LAX nightmare which takes much longer considering the drive, parking and security.

I have ridden on many HSR trains in Italy, France and Germany, and they all work great. The train only stops for a few minutes at each station for unloading, and in California we are only talking about a few stops in between the two metro areas. It is not making the laundry list of stops that the archaic Amtrak system does.

Oh, and in case you just woke up from sleeping in your city college urban planning class, there is a train called Amtrak that travels from L.A. to San Diego. It's called Pacific Surfliner...you should look into it.

tdavis Dec 3, 2011 12:49 AM

Since we've been on the topic of signature buildings/projects, I thought I'd share this. It looks like a pretty cool set of 40-story bridges that are being built in Dallas.

Dallas Bridge-o-Rama


http://www.alphatesting.com/assets/i...atrava%201.JPG

HurricaneHugo Dec 3, 2011 8:17 AM

That is ugly...our pedestrian bridge is better


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:09 AM.

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