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)

SDCAL Apr 22, 2014 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6548374)
Here is the contact info for the City Planning Department. I suggest everyone on this board write a few sentences and send it to all of these members.

I also suggest sending something strongly worded to the clairemont Planning Board letting them know that they do not speak for all residents inside or outside of their area. This nonsense needs to stop. These people are ruining this city, and think that their house entitles them to view corridors for a lifetime at the expense of everyone else. If anyone is good with Twitter, please spread he word that these groups are basically anti-youth.


Mailing Addresses

City Planning Division
1222 First Avenue, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92101
planning@sandiego.gov

Management Team

Department Director
Bill Fulton, bfulton@sandiego.gov, (619)236-6057

Deputy Planning Director
Nancy Bragado, nsbragado@sandiego.gov, (619) 533-4549

Deputy Director, Environmental and Resource Analysis
Cathy Winterrowd, cwinterrowd@sandiego.gov, (619) 235-5217

Senior Traffic Engineer
Samir Hajjiri, shajjiri@sandiego.gov, (619) 533-6551

_____________

Clairemont Planning Group

jeffb@rbf.com

https://www.facebook.com/ClairemontPG

https://twitter.com/clairemontpg

People should contact their City Councilmember.

It says in the article the council has the power to approve the height increase, this "clairemont planning board" is really powerless from a legal standpoint.

Their power comes from a political standpoint and their intentions to show up at council meetings and complain until they get their way. Ed Harris is the council member for that specific district, so it might be hard to get him to vote for it if he feels like many of his constituents are against it, but hopefully the other city council members will be intelligent enough to realize that these types of development/transit decisions will play a big role in the future of our city and if they fail to approve this it sets up our billion + investment in the UTC trolley extension up for failure.

By the way, I had to laugh - one of the reasons against this sited in the article is "too much traffic and parking". Do these people realize the whole point of this MASS TRANSIT project is to help alleviate what they are saying they are against!!?? :lmao::koko:

SDCAL Apr 22, 2014 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6545851)
^^ Great post SD Fan, you should right that as a letter to the UT and demand that Manchester and Lynch do all they can to fight this. Shouldn't the UT be super pro development? Why aren't they doing more to show the idiotic stance this city is taking on growth? Can you please outline the situations going on in La Jolla, Golden Hill, etc that you were referring to in your post, thanks :cheers:

Oh and where is Bill Fulton while all of this is going on? I thought he was a huge density advocate.

I don't think Manchester is as "pro-development" as people think.

He is definitely pro HIS developments, but you have to keep in mind his bread and butter are older, wealthier folks in the northern suburbs who tend to be the same NIMBYS that don't want density in their neighborhoods.

I speculate that Manchester is more along the lines of "high density is great for downtown/mission valley but keep our suburbs quiet, tree-lined, and car-centric".

SDCAL Apr 22, 2014 6:40 AM

All cities have NIMBYS who complain about development.

The difference is other cities stick with their master-plans better, but SD coddles the crazies who show up and yell at city council meetings because they care more about their own view than the good of the city as a whole.

I am up in LA quite a bit, there is a huge project being proposed in hollywood near the Capitol records bldg off the 101 that has the nymbys up there boiling over with rage too!! It looks like they might actually win out due to a fault line :

http://la.curbed.com/tags/millennium-hollywood

spoonman Apr 22, 2014 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6548637)
People should contact their City Councilmember.

It says in the article the council has the power to approve the height increase, this "clairemont planning board" is really powerless from a legal standpoint.

Their power comes from a political standpoint and their intentions to show up at council meetings and complain until they get their way. Ed Harris is the council member for that specific district, so it might be hard to get him to vote for it if he feels like many of his constituents are against it, but hopefully the other city council members will be intelligent enough to realize that these types of development/transit decisions will play a big role in the future of our city and if they fail to approve this it sets up our billion + investment in the UTC trolley extension up for failure.

By the way, I had to laugh - one of the reasons against this sited in the article is "too much traffic and parking". Do these people realize the whole point of this MASS TRANSIT project is to help alleviate what they are saying they are against!!?? :lmao::koko:

Thanks SDCAL. Do you have the contact info for this city council member?

We need to start being louder than these old crackpots that go to these meetings. :hell: I realize that some of these planning groups don't have a DIRECT say in matters, but they do get swayed by citizens to make a recommendation on the issue. By pushing back, we can at least moderate the recommendations.

tyleraf Apr 22, 2014 2:39 PM

The good thing about Ed Harris that could make him more likely to be open to this is that he cannot be reelected and that he was appointed by the city council to finish Faulconer's term.

tyleraf Apr 22, 2014 2:45 PM

Lane Field will break ground on May 8th! http://www.portofsandiego.org/real-e...dero-area.html

spoonman Apr 23, 2014 3:19 AM

The comments on this trolley article are unreal. One boomer referred to her view as her birthright and claims that a 60ft building would block out the sun killing her plants...you must read the rest of the comments to believe it.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/2...lley-tensions/

Here is a sample...

"Oh let's see...give up my solar, my sunshine, my bay view in exchange for some gelt? Nah. I think not. People moved here for a reason, not to sell their birthright to a bunch of businessmen for a mess of pottage. If you get my drift..."

Bertrice Apr 23, 2014 3:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6549923)
The comments on this trolley article are unreal. One boomer referred to her view as her birthright and claims that a 60ft building would block out the sun killing her plants...you must read the rest of the comments to believe it.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/2...lley-tensions/

Here is a sample...

"Oh let's see...give up my solar, my sunshine, my bay view in exchange for some gelt? Nah. I think not. People moved here for a reason, not to sell their birthright to a bunch of businessmen for a mess of pottage. If you get my drift..."

He's right. Bay park doesn't need density. The "Linda vista" the article refers to is bay park. Linda vista needs to be razed but but bay park really? Its bay park. leave it alone.

nezbn22 Apr 23, 2014 4:49 PM

If Bay Park and Clairemont residents really don't want the added density, why not just run the trolley past them without any stops? The purpose of extending the Blue Line is to access UCSD and UTC. Eliminating the stops along the way would actually enhance that access by providing a quicker trip.

I don't think anyone outside of Bay Park and Clairemont particularly want access to those neighborhoods. And if those inside Bay Park and Clairemont don't support it, why cater to them at all? Save money on building those trolley stops, and enjoy a faster commute to UTC.

Erip Apr 23, 2014 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6548637)
People should contact their City Councilmember.

It says in the article the council has the power to approve the height increase, this "clairemont planning board" is really powerless from a legal standpoint.

Their power comes from a political standpoint and their intentions to show up at council meetings and complain until they get their way. Ed Harris is the council member for that specific district, so it might be hard to get him to vote for it if he feels like many of his constituents are against it, but hopefully the other city council members will be intelligent enough to realize that these types of development/transit decisions will play a big role in the future of our city and if they fail to approve this it sets up our billion + investment in the UTC trolley extension up for failure.

By the way, I had to laugh - one of the reasons against this sited in the article is "too much traffic and parking". Do these people realize the whole point of this MASS TRANSIT project is to help alleviate what they are saying they are against!!?? :lmao::koko:

Great idea, thanks for compiling this contact info. Would you, or someone, care to post a template or some sample language that we could use for these letters?

Prahaboheme Apr 23, 2014 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezbn22 (Post 6550438)
If Bay Park and Clairemont residents really don't want the added density, why not just run the trolley past them without any stops? The purpose of extending the Blue Line is to access UCSD and UTC. Eliminating the stops along the way would actually enhance that access by providing a quicker trip.

I don't think anyone outside of Bay Park and Clairemont particularly want access to those neighborhoods. And if those inside Bay Park and Clairemont don't support it, why cater to them at all? Save money on building those trolley stops, and enjoy a faster commute to UTC.

Only if you assume that all passengers on the trolley need direct access from UTC/UCSD to downtown (vice versus). In my opinion, this extension needs more stops to make it viable, not less.

tyleraf Apr 24, 2014 1:50 AM

With downtown's class a office vacancy rates at long time lows, let's hope that Irvine will restart movement on 880 w broadway soon, preferably with a new design. Good new though, Hughes Marino has said they are lining up tenants for Pacific Gateway which should be hopefully getting started soon. Hopefully Makers Quarter and the IDEA District can ride this wave as well.http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-m...oASq2iW6INqaQM Also, here is an article about downtowns tech cluster. I hope things get really moving soon.http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/2...own-space-jam/

spoonman Apr 24, 2014 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6551272)
With downtown's class a office vacancy rates at long time lows, let's hope that Irvine will restart movement on 880 w broadway soon, preferably with a new design. Good new though, Hughes Marino has said they are lining up tenants for Pacific Gateway which should be hopefully getting started soon. Hopefully Makers Quarter and the IDEA District can ride this wave as well.http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-m...oASq2iW6INqaQM Also, here is an article about downtowns tech cluster. I hope things get really moving soon.http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/2...own-space-jam/

^Haha, I just wrote a huge rant in the comments section.

spoonman Apr 24, 2014 4:33 AM

New development off the 56. Mostly 4 floors, with a parking structure, shops, restaurants, etc.

http://phrvillage.com/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XZs9ezORg6...0/photo(1).PNG

mello Apr 24, 2014 5:51 AM

Good rant Spoonman, who is Bill Foley? I am appalled at the 60 feet thing in Bay Park as well. So that is a 5 floor residential or 6 floor? Don't they have to use concrete and steel above 5 floors or can they use wood on a 6 floor structure?

So the entire IDEA district has only 60k sq ft. of office space??? That is nothing! Or are they just talking about that one building in the rendering. It is many square blocks and this district so that amount of square feet is super small. What do you guys think can be done to give tech companies more attractive space downtown?

I'm totally cool with bottom of TR produce being leased to that one fast growing company it has sat empty for what 8 or 9 years now :( Downtown is obviously saturated with bars and restaurants we need young money down there in the form of tech jobs before more eating/drinking establishments are in demand.

tyleraf Apr 24, 2014 1:54 PM

I think he meant Bill Fulton. I agree with your rant and I hope others on VOSD agree and hopefully people begin to take action. I sure hope that the TR produce building tech space is approved. I'd hate to lose another tech company. I would love to see Qualcomm do something similar to Amazon's Rufus 2.0. I think IDEA District and and Makers Quarter need to be much more aggressive with getting office space built since a lot of the tenants they are looking to lease to probably arent even large enough yet to lease the space.

spoonman Apr 24, 2014 8:27 PM

Sorry, yes, I meant Fulton. It seems that the comment section in that article has become pretty heated. I'm finding it interesting to learn what the NIMBY crowd is all about.

Northparkwizard Apr 24, 2014 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6552260)
Sorry, yes, I meant Fulton. It seems that the comment section in that article has become pretty heated. I'm finding it interesting to learn what the NIMBY crowd is all about.

That guy Jim Jones... :hell:

Streamliner Apr 24, 2014 10:44 PM

County Administration Center Waterfront Park

County Supervisor Dave Roberts posted a couple pictures on his facebook account of the southern half of the new CAC Waterfront Park.

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/...28825543_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...20932038_n.jpg

spoonman Apr 25, 2014 1:02 AM

^Wow. Impressive.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.