I agree, but I think it'll improve a lot once the trees mature and their canopies fill out.

That would be DG (decomposed granite) and it's widely used in urban parks worldwide, most notably for the pathways/walkways of The Tuileries Garden in Paris, France. It's a fantastic natural alternative to asphalt or concrete and in my opinion looks great and far from cheap. It will also become more compact over time.

The planning meeting I mentioned earlier was (as I understood it) about where to put additional density in this city. According to the SD Urban website, there was a loose draft of a plan to put housing on the Sports Arena site, and Ed Harris pushed back in NIMBY fashion. As I understand, that has left Bill Fulton and the city to figure out where they can possibly put additional housing without pushback.

We know that Mission Valley may be the centerpiece of efforts, but alone will not be enough for future growth. If areas like North Park and Hillcrest push back, I would love to see growth along the trolley line in the National City, Chula Vista and San Ysidro areas. Only problem is I'm not sure how much of the area along this trolley line is actually in SD for SD to want to promote it (increase tax base).

What we may need is to develop an area that is currently industrial so there can be no resident pushback. Every building is high density and everyone that moves in understands the plan for the neighborhood...pie in the sky I'm sure.

Anyone attend this meeting or have any thoughts on this?

It's ridiculous that the ignorant citizens of this city can sit and think that we shouldn't build anything remotely high density except in downtown. I hope the anti growth sentiment starts to change over the next 20 years like what is happening in Seattle now.

Carnitas Snack Shack scored the prime cafe space in North Embarcadero. Yum!

http://sandiego.eater.com/archives/2...t-location.php

As a designer I find your "cheap gravel/dirt" statement troublesome. This is actually decomposed granite, and it isn't cheap (as in cost) at all. It's used all across the world at museums, parks, and other highly visible locations.

Decomposed granite allows for room to walk and permeation of water unlike concrete or other hard materials. In addition, it isn't toxic to the environment.

And though Tyler mentioned it should be replaced with grass, keep in mind that these are walkways, and grass wouldn't last with the amount of people walking in that area. Grass would also require more maintenance, water, etc.

http://www.sandiegostreets.com/wp-co...cadero_004.jpg

I guess theres enough paving. dunno.
Has this site ever been posted here

http://www.sandiegostreets.com/

Yea, I think someone shared it a couple weeks ago. I tried to encourage the guy to join here. He takes great photos. Overall the NEVP looks great though. I look forward to checking it out tomorrow.

New Here!
 

Hey guys I'm Andy and I'm 16. I've been following this forum for some time and I thought I should get involved. I have a great interest in urban development and San Diego. I happy this forum exists and I love what you guys have been doing on here.

Welcome. This is a great group. Please feel free to share any photos or insights you have on new developments.

But it is cheap and looks cheap. You can't honestly tell me that that stuff is expensive. People in AZ used crushed granite just about everywhere. That fine pebble is usually cheaper than the larger granite gravel.

Hi Andy!

What part of SD are you from?

I live up in Penasquitos actually right around where Rhodes crossing was supposed to go up

Welcome Andy and what was "Rhodes Crossing"?

So Bill Fulton is going to quit on the Sports Arena due to a little pushback from Ed Harris :haha: don't think so. Who the f**k does Harris think he is? He doesn't run this city, Faulconer is already pro housing construction so that is all we need. Don't worry we call deal with idiots like Ed, and no one even lives by the Sports Arena that isn't a neighborhood is a complete throw away area and an amalgamation of 60's era crap!

Agree and people are taking notice. Look at this list. Current and Future most walkable cities list, with a few least walkable candidates.

Guess who shows up as a future least walkable city? Embarrassing!

http://time.com/money/2887232/the-fu...-be-surprised/

I have to admit, traffic through the midway area is terrible at times. I drive between Mission Bay and Point Loma on weekdays, at it takes quite some time to get a short distance across. It's a shame there aren't (at least that I know of) any new transit plans for the area other than buses. I could see a trolley going up through and over to Point Loma. I know a trolley is eventually supposed to go to PB, but I'm not sure if there are any reasonable stops south. With those kinds of infrastructure upgrades, I think Midway could handle the growth proposed and much more.

Wow that is just pitiful. I hope Fulton can help be the solution to our problems.

That list is ridiculous they have Miami being number 4 or 5 of most walkable future cities and Chicago 14th :koko: I don't think so. Have you guys heard of any big transit things happening in Miami? I haven't... I think its just a lame article. Lets face it due to San Diego's geography and our budget constraints our walkability will probably not be great anytime soon. The only way I see this changing if there is a massive shift in new jobs going downtown instead of to all of the other job centers (SV, UTC, Rancho Bernardo, Carlsbad etc). Will North Park ever have tons of jobs people can walk to, Hillcrest??? Highly doubtful so people will have to use their cars.

I can find the docs for it but it's a shopping center and some 4-5 story apartments in torrey highlands. It's kind of similar to the 4s commons in 4s ranch. I think you guys may have talked about it some a couple weeks ago

That list is trash from beginning to end. There was a thread about here on SSP a few weeks ago. It didn't end well. :haha: