I'll run for mayor. ;)

Today was a sad day in brazil, the country experienced it's worst airline disaster ever with almost 200 people killed when a TAM airline trying to make a landing at Sao Paulo's Congonhas airport ran out of runway space during a rainstorm, sped onto a road, then crashed into a nearby building leaving everyone on board dead.

News articles describe the airport as being in an unusually urban area (for an airport) and as having notoriously "short and slippery" runways.

an excerpt from a cnn article reads:

"Tom Hennigan, a reporter from The Times of London in Sao Paulo, told CNN that flying into Congonhas "is like you are literally flying past people's living rooms in apartment blocks. Then you land on the runway. It is completely surrounded by the central part of Sao Paulo city. This is not an airport out on the edge of the city. This is right in the city."

In February, a Brazilian court banned large jets at the busy airport because of safety concerns. But there was an outcry about limiting the convenient, busy airport, and an appeals court reversed the ruling."

The description makes me think about how when i fly into San Diego from the east, it feels like you are so close to balboa park and the surrounding buildings you can reach down and touch them from your window. A cool site to see landing, but how safe is it?

Obviously SD and Sao Paulo are two different airports with two entirely differnet sets of circumstances, but the overall point is how safe is it to have an airport smack in the middle of a large growing city and should the masses who think it's "convinient" be able to sway politicians and city planners into overlooking the safety concerns?

When you are in a situation where runways can't accomodate lareger planes due to being too short and you have lawsuits between builders and the FDA about tearing two floors off the top of a building because it's in the flight-path and deemed too high, it's a sign your airport is in the WRONG F'ING LOCATION

No, it won't be 50 years, even in a conservative, narrow-minded town where the politicians have their heads up their arses, public outcry will turn the heat on when soccer moms with screaming babies have to sit in rediculous lines for their midwest flights or drive to LA or TJ to catch a flight. The city has shown they don't care what business or current international travelers think, but when the average joe family guy who uses the airport starts getting effected, public opinion will force something to happen

Like I said in a previous post, my prediction is that in about 15 years we will start to see the ill effects of an inadequate airport effect the masses and the military will give up Miraramar for pr reasons so they don't look like they are standing in the way of the problem (even though they ARE).

If you look at SANDAG website, San Diego's population projections for the next 30 years have already been adjusted updward. I don't think people were accurately predicting just how many foreign immigrants (mostly from mexico, latin/central america and asia) San Diego will be picking up in the next 25 years and each prediction from groups like SANDAG increases the percentages with each new projection.

If they are underestimating the population growth, they are probably also underestimating the date with which Lindbergh will "reach capacity" but that date is really not valid, the date that matters is when the average joe traveler starts to encounter MAJOR hassle and delays at the airport. This is when they will act and it will happen well before 50 yrs

The metro population is suppose to exceed 4 million by 2025 (not including Tijuana, which ,combined, reaches over 5 million people).

I think Eburess and SDCAL are both right about the will of the people to do jack. Without the political will, there is no movement toward change. When it comes to the floating airport itself though, the concept wouldn't really seem that odd if there was actually support for a new airport. It's that as long as people think the current SDIA is healthy, they perceive any new airport (especially one that floats) as a luxury item.

I thought this was a development thread, not a floating airport debate.

I travel alot and it I am quite tired of spending hours in Chicago and Dallas and even Cleveland waiting for connections home to SD. I was returning from Germany last week and this was the route that I had to trave: Cologne to Newark, newark to Cleveland and finally Cleveland to San Diego. One would think that we live in the back woods of Nebraska instead of a city of three million people. I know that SD will not get more corporations or big buisness until our airport can handle non~stop flights from Asia and Europe. Next time I come back from Germany I want it to be on a non~stop from Frankfurt.

It's just about the only thing we have to talk about right now.

If we get lucky, Lufthansa expressed interest in non-stops from San Diego to Frankfurt and Frankfurt to San Diego, so talks are definitely going on.

In many other cities I would agree with you, but unfortunately for us, "the public" here places much more value on keeping San Diego small and quaint than convenience, growth, development, and ultimately common sense.

Even if the city had the money, the available land, and didn't have their heads of their arses, it's still a moot point because the people here don't want an airport. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Development in San Diego is becoming increasingly dependent upon (and constrained by) their airport. New airport = more and taller development.

I hate this too. On my return from Puerto Vallarata last week, I spent 10 hours trapped in layover hell in Phoenix. One would think you could at least get a direct flight from SD to Mexican destinations, being that we're on the freakin' border.

US Airways has some direct flights to Mexico. As does Aeromexico.

Are these immigrants from Mexico and Central America wealthy enough to buy airline tickets in large numbers?

Where are they flying to?

Taller buildings are driven by demand and cost. When the market will bear $1000+ psf units, developers will build up to 500 feet.

The current proposed projects are the product of cheap money and amatuer developers. If 500' was currently economically feasible possible, wouldn't BOSA (who had the best sites) push the envelope on all of their sites? They only get one shot on each site so they might as well maximize it. Obvioulsy, they have determined that the incremental value of building those last few stories wasn't worth it. They can't sell them for enough money to justify the extra engineering and construction costs.

I believe that the costs increase quite a bit above 40 +/- stories. Even in Las Vegas, which apparently doesn't have a height limit (Stratoshere), most of the proposed highrise developements top out near 40 stories.

http://www.manhattanization.com/las-...high-rises.rub

damn, and i was going to complain about my 5 hour layover in SF when i went/came from Paris...

but at least I was able to take a quick visit to downtown SF, there's nothing in Phoenix..

There are some direct Mexico flights from SAN, including a seasonal one to Cancun

North Embarcadero Visionary Plan JPA Meeting… anyone notice that one project to be presented is Bosa’s development project on the southeast corner of Broadway and Pacific Highway? That’s right in front of Electra. Is this a new project, or is it this one:

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm?fuseac...propertyID=353
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyI...y%20at%20E.jpg

This argument doesn't make sense. First of all most cities that have taller buildings than ours actually have lower costs per square foot. Also, developers don't care if a building is 500 feet or 480 in the case of Electra. It's absurd to think that Electra couldn't be 20 feet taller without hardship on the project. Developers only care about height when it genuinely equals higher prices. They don't need to squeeze the project for 8 more units when they have 2 or 3 other buildings going up down the street. But if there was no height limit, you would surely see ego buildings of 700 feet that would command the highest prices in the city because of the prestige and height. But to look at our plateaued skyline and think that it is 100% the result of market forces is unlikely in my opinion.

^^I'm hoping that's the project they are talking about. I really like the design :tup:


Did you use mileage points or something? You can fly from Newark to SAN nonstop on Northwest. Most recently, I flew from Munich to SAN with a stop in ATL. I've also done Brussels to SAN via Philly. But, yeah, I agree that it would be nice to fly nonstop to Europe again. Hopefully, Lufthansa will replace the British Airways flight that stopped a couple of years ago.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you here. The only reason why we haven't had any towers pass the 500' mark is because of the FAA imposed height limit. To make matters worse, it's a 500' mean sea level height. Meaning, because of the downtown's varied topography, we'll never see a true 500' tower again. America Plaza is our only 500' tower and will most likely be the only one for along time.

In the meantime, we've had so many proposals reach the 500' msl limit, ie, Vantage Pointe, Mondrian aka Grigio, Library Tower, Shapery Park Tower, the recently announced Marriott towers, Riviera, etc. If no height limit existed, there's no doubt in my mind that all of these proposals would be much taller than what has been proposed. The most ridiculous proposal is Mondrian which is suppose to have over 900 units in a 410' tower.