SkyscraperPage Forum - SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

Viewing Page 309 of 796

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)

^ Just move to Portland already, you little bastard! :haha:

Coaster service was canceled today due to the storms; so was Battle of the Bands. This weather needs to go to hell already.

I'm going to need a boat to finish my christmas shopping. :\

^ You can always sail around the Q's parking lot:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8987/qtrolley.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1898/qparking.png

Or inside the stadium!

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7859/theqd.jpg

And play a round of golf in a lake later on:

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7484/valley4t593.jpg

(All pics from the Union-Tribune)

Not much of a surprise here...

Quote:

SANDAG Board Endorses 14 Lanes For 1-5
By Maureen Cavanaugh, Pat Finn
December 22, 2010

The proposal to widen a 27-mile stretch of Interstate 5 from La Jolla to Camp Pendleton has gotten a big push forward from the San Diego Association of Governments. Last Friday, SANDAG members overwhelmingly approved the Regional Transportation Plan which includes the proposal to widen I-5 by 6 lanes from Del Mar to Carlsbad.

The I-5 expansion plan has run up against strong opposition in recent months. Environmentalists have warned about the impact of the construction on sensitive areas; North County residents are concerned about noise; and about 30 homeowners will be forced to move if the SANDAG-approved expansion plan goes forward.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/dec/22...-14-lanes-1-5/

THIRTY HOMEOWNERS will lose their freeway views?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5103276)

THIRTY HOMEOWNERS will lose their freeway views?!

Those homes probably also have ocean views, but nevertheless, they need to quit their bitching. If they have to move, they would be doing so for the good of the region. In order to make a better city, some people are going to have to make sacrifices, and San Diegans' unwillingness to do so is a big part of the reason why this city is in the state its in.

I'll gladly move out of my home if they ever decided to put a lid on the 805 between the 94 and Imperial Avenue. :)

As long as they pay me of course. :D

Is that huge Mission Valley development on the old quarry site going through? I saw an aerial of the flooding East of the 805 and noticed a huge chunk of graded land on the North end of the valley. I know that was a giant and controversial development and hadn't heard any news about it in this thread.

About the 5 widening my question to the detractors is how are you really going to put in decent transit to get people to SD's scattered and sprawling office parks all over the county? Especially in hilly and super sprawly North County. It is not going to happen, so yes the 5 does need to be widened.

I bet all of those people who fought to have the 805 end where it does are kicking themselves. The reason North County's traffic is so horrendous is due to just having the 5 right on the coast and then the 15 so far inland with no N/S highway in between.

Wait what about the 805?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5104153)

Wait what about the 805?

I mean that in hindsight it would have been much better for North County transportation and infrastructure had the 805 continued on up through Oceanside and either merged with 5 there or just hit the 76 where you could either go east to the 15 or west to the 5 on that highway.

Back when the 805 was built planners did not envision North County booming, you really had nothing east of 5 until you got all the way up to Vista and Escondido. San Marcos was nothing. East of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Carlsbad was all open land until the mid 70's. Vista and Escondido were the only population centers in Inland North County. Poway was maybe 5000 people if that. No Rancho Bernardo, Penasquitos, Carmel Valley, etc.

I have lived in Central San Diego (Bay Park and Hillcrest) and grew up in Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe. The traffic flows much better in central SD because you have 5, 805, 163, and 15 all so close to each other. In the North you just have I-5 right along the beach and the 15 was inland with nothing in between.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipani (Post 5098893)

Due to the levees it's doubtful a subway system would ever happen in Sac. As a Sacramento native I don't think the density is there right now or in the foreseeable future. For several years they've been trying to follow the Portland model; mostly without success, as major projects stalled at the beginning of the financial crisis. Plus Nimbys in East Sac and Curtis Park would sue to stop anything costing more than $20.

Levees do not preclude underground alignments, after-all, BART is under the Bay and countless systems are under rivers. Btw, a rail system does not need to be underground through an entire system; only where needed. And, a 1-3 mile portion in downtown Sacramento could be a possible location.

"Need" is through the necessity to effeciency and/or capacity of a system.

By the way, Sacramento RTD already runs some 4-car trains on a light-rail system... this provides some evidence that rider demand is present. They probably cannot run shorter trains more often because they cannot process any more??? (Research needed on that one)

Brings up the question, at least in my mind, which of California's largest cities that have rail service will put their system underground for the purpose of improving effeciency or capacity? San Francisco and Los Angeles already have underground alignments downtown. And, each is further expanding their systems. Is Sacramento next? Or San Diego next? Someone has to be next.

Just for fun:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1...asetunnel3.jpg

^^ I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be San Diego. :haha:

Since we're talking about rail and all that (and there's not much else going on), I thought I'd post the "future" SD rail system map I made a few years ago. It's large so sorry for the scrolling. :)

http://www.mondomorphic.com/sandiego/sdrail.png

I had another version in which the 805 didn't merge with the 5. It was glorious.

Makes me cry that it'll never look like that. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5104540)

Makes me cry that it'll never look like that. :(

hahaha - me too! It's fun to imagine but depressing at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 5104493)

Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, and Golden Hill (all the mid cities with the most density) gets the shaft.

Streetcar system in SD

Hi everyone--I just moved to San Diego from Portland, OR (and no I did not bring the rain with me). I love it here and have been enjoying your posts on this forum--especially the maps of transit systems both proposed and wished for.
While living in Portland I would ride their streetcar system, which was designed to serve residents within the downtown area with a loop route design connecting the South Waterfront to NW Portland. It's a different system than their light-rail which mostly serves commuters and is entirely city owned and operated. Their streetcar system is a public/private operation with Portland Streetcar Inc., a private non-profit that partners with the city of Portland to construct and operate the system. Each streetcar vehicle is also "sponsored" by businesses both local and non-local and each station stop is sponsored by businesses. The streetcar lines go up pretty fast. The second streetcar line which broke ground in August of 2009 is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2011. The original streetcar route spurred 4 billion dollars in investment and redevelopment of once desolate areas like the Pearl district and portions of downtown like the West End and the area near Portland State University.

I think a public-private partnership could work in San Diego and a plan similar to Portland's might speed up approval and construction of a streetcar route or loop linking Balboa Park, Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, and Golden Hill with Downtown. It would spur investment and development in those areas and serve the residents of these communities who for instance might live in South Park and want to leave their car at home and hop on the streetcar to go to Whole Foods in Hillcrest.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this subject. I think the public-private thing is crucial to speeding this type of development along.

Public/Private enterprise? Very interesting concept, consider for a moment:

Private enterprises need to make a profit or at least not lose their money.

Public agencies need funding from tax money or bonds.

Maybe you havent heard the news. Rail systems are money loser on a huge scale. Governments in California (and across the country) are broke and their bonding abilities is nil.

But I am sure you got an A in your college public planning class. You will fit in well on this forum with the other young diddlers.

Welcome! :banana:

Quote:

Originally Posted by laguna (Post 5105779)

Wow what a welcome Laguna. Jeez.

Quote:

New City Hall may rise without public vote
New-look council might be willing to forego election and back building
BY CRAIG GUSTAFSON, UNION-TRIBUNE
JEN LEBRON KUHNEY, UNION-TRIBUNE
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2010 AT 7:12 P.M.

The debate over whether to build a new San Diego City Hall is expected to begin anew early next year as city leaders weigh three choices: abandon the project, put it to a public vote or bypass voters and build it.

The $293.5 million project was shelved last summer because city officials didn’t want it to appear on the November ballot alongside a proposed sales-tax hike, a measure that was roundly rejected by voters. Now the project — and its projected taxpayer savings — could be revived by a new-look City Council that may be willing to forego a public vote and break ground.

City leaders have considered proposals to replace City Hall in each of the past three decades. A City Council majority voted against a $370 million plan supported by then-Mayor Maureen O’Connor in 1991, the closest officials have come to realizing the goal.

There’s little debate that the current City Hall has major drawbacks. The building doesn’t have fire sprinklers on every floor; there are frequent plumbing problems; and it could easily be mistaken for a rundown office building instead of the political epicenter of the nation’s eighth-largest city.

None of that is likely to engender sympathy from voters who have been frustrated with decades of financial mismanagement by city officials.

Council members, pointing to recent voter rejection of the sales tax hike, said they expect a similar fate if the City Hall project is put to a public vote.

The city also faces a $73 million budget deficit for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which suggests to some that it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend four times that on a new City Hall. But supporters, including Mayor Jerry Sanders, say the project would save millions in taxpayer money by consolidating city operations into a single building.

Councilman Carl DeMaio, the most vehement critic of the project, said city leaders have much bigger worries than constructing a shiny new building.

“We couldn’t afford it four months ago and we cannot afford it today,” he said.

But much has changed since July when Sanders vetoed a plan to put the new City Hall to a public vote.

Four council members had vowed not to approve the project without an election — DeMaio, Sherri Lightner, Kevin Faulconer and Donna Frye. That blocked the project from getting five votes needed on the eight-member panel to move forward.

But Frye is out of office now.

Two new council members — Republican Lorie Zapf and Democrat David Alvarez — took office this month.

Alvarez said he supports moving forward without a public vote as long as the project makes financial sense.

“People elect us to make decisions to our best ability and I think that if it’s a good deal for taxpayers, it’s our responsibility as their representatives to support it and make that decision,” he said.

During the campaign, Zapf said she opposed the project but was open to a public vote. She was far less committal when her office was asked last week where she stood on the issue.

Zapf’s spokesman, Job Nelson, said the councilwoman thinks there is some merit to the project given potential savings in building maintenance and leased office space but understands why many are struggling with the notion of building a new City Hall while cuts are threatened to public safety and other services.

“We’re kind of stuck in the middle of this one,” Nelson said. “I would say we side with the community and we need to fix the strong distrust they have before we can try.”

The project’s fate likely hangs on Zapf’s final decision.

The current plan calls for a 19-story City Hall totaling 576,000 square feet at C Street and First Avenue, where Golden Hall sits just west of the existing City Hall. It would include two levels of underground parking, a one-stop shop for city services on the first floor and a 400-seat City Council chambers. The rest of the building would be occupied by about 2,400 city office workers.

It’s a scaled-down version of the original proposal by Portland, Ore.-based Gerding Edlen for a 34-story structure with 1 million square feet.

City officials say the current 13-story building, which opened in 1965, is too small and will require $37 million in repairs over the next decade, at the end of which the structure would have to be replaced. The new building would allow the city to consolidate operations and eliminate about $13 million in annual lease payments at other downtown locations.

Much of that savings would then be used over the next 30 years to pay off the $320 million the city would need to borrow to finance the project. That total is higher than the construction estimate because of the cost of issuing bonds. An estimate from the council’s independent budget analyst said the total cost of the project would be about $613 million over three decades with interest and debt payments factored in.

Sanders said the city would have money left over after paying for the new building. He projects savings of about $24 million over the first 10 years and as much as $232 million during the building’s 50-year life cycle.

“It’s an option that we need to seriously consider,” he said.

Councilman Todd Gloria, who supports moving ahead without a public vote, said he knows voters would be hesitant to approve the project but that doesn’t stop the city from needing it.

“It’s not about just saving money today. We need to think about the future,” Gloria said.

Council President Tony Young, who sets the agenda, said he has not yet set a hearing date to revisit the issue but will address the proposed City Hall in a speech he plans to deliver next month.

The original timeline called for construction to begin in January 2012 with the goal of opening by July 2014.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...c82dae770b93ac
An artist's rendering shows the proposed 19-story San Diego City Hall, which is significantly scaled back from the original proposal.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...rom-the-ashes/

Viewing Page 309 of 796