Yeah, I wish the city in the background of that rendering was San Diego. Maybe in 100 years.

Sorry guys, but I don't agree with those of you that think SD does not have unique buildings or architecture. While some of our office towers lack creativity, that's mostly because we haven't seen many built recently. When they are built, it seems as tough they will be innovative. Think IM Pei, and 655 Boradway...it is very unique from street level.

As far as residential goes, I believe that we have some of the newest freshest designs in the country. Park Place, Grande, Pinnacle, Embassy 1414 have character and have not been duplicated in many other cities. Although many of our residential towers are styled after buildings in Vancouver, it's still a style that hasn't been repeated in many other places and IS unique to San Diego as far as the United States is concerned.

My gripe is about residential towers being littered with balconies...

I do agree with you and perhaps I was too harsh on San Diego in earlier posts, I just get frustrated sometimes by the local GOVERNMENT (not the people) - - the truth is there are a lot of creative, innovative residents in San Diego, the point I should have made earlier is that it's not that San Diego lacks creativity it's that the creativity here is often hammered-down by the conservative city and county governemnts more so than in other places. We do have a large population of very conservative suburbanites who for the most part like traditional architecture without an edge.

As for the postings above of the smaller projects, thanks for opening my eyes - I hadn't seen most of those before, some of the EV and LI proposals look very cool even though they aren't that tall. But, I haven't seen most of these things on the CCDC website, does that mean they are off the table or being still being considered??

Anyway, I did want to make the clarification that my earlier posts regarding the drab building boom that lacks creativity was more geared to the high-rise towers going up and not the smaller projects. Many of our new towers look like they will date quickly, like they are trying to aspire to something but not quite achieving it. Someone posted earlier about looking like Honolulu hotels built in the 70s, and that is unfortunately what I am seeing more and more :yuck: I hope the smaller projects that show innovation and original design continue, especially into the East Village which still has alot of growing potential. As much as I'd like to see the height restictions lifted and a more defining skyline go into place, I also believe the smaller street-level buildings are just as important for the urban experience. Still we should push for both becasue the smaller projects are more important for those who live, work and frequent DT, whereas the height and design of the tall towers is what projects our skyline from other areas like point loma and the bay and also what is projected to the world in photographs

This is cool and thanks for sharing!! Never seen these renderings before and I really like the idea of salvaging existing materials instead of completley excavating lots and re-doing everything from the ground up. It brings new modern life to the area but still keeps the original feel of the place which makes urban schemes seem more natural, more real - - is there a link on the web for this? Is it a proposal that is planned, a possibility, or just wishful thinking??

The East Village images are interesting? But, I am lost with it without there being any recognizable landmarks. I see the trolley, but I can't tell what the cross streets are. So, I am left wondering where this project is located. Is this a real proposal?

How about this image?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...t%203/ev13.jpg

^^^Since it is suppose to be part of the Park-to-Bay Link, I imagine it's the area around 13th Ave, since that's where the trolley runs. I really don't recognize any of the surrounding buildings, either. It's obviously a vision


You and me both. I wish we'd see more recessed balconies and less of the protruding ones. :(


The Southblock Lofts (aka The Lofts at 655) and Sigsbee Row are under construction now, while the Little Italy project is just a proposal.


This is why it's so important to preserve as many of the historic buildings we have downtown instead of tearing them down. I'm glad to see more than a few projects incorporate old buildings into their developments. Some of the projects that have done this include:

TR Produce - Old Warehouse
Petco Park - Western Metals
ICON - Carnation Building
Horton Plaza - Balboa Theater
Breeza - Parron Hall
Cosmo (If it ever gets built) - Old Fire Station and historic building
Hard Rock Hotel block - Save The Old Spaghetti Factory building
Waterfront Condos (Little Italy) - Preserved The Waterfront bar

These are just a few that I can recall. Wouldn't you agree that all of the mentioned projects would be less interesting if everything was brand new?
I'd much rather see 5 different developments on a city block instead of a single development (I'm referring to smaller low-rise projects, of course). That way, the block would have more character and a varied style. A good example is the block where The Diegan is located. That block is a great juxtaposition of old and new standing side by side.

Regarding the East Village plan - I think it's just a vision of what the developer would like to see downtown.

also, not downtown, but the Egyptian in Hillcrest incorporated the original facade of the Egyptian Theater

proposed, from ccdc map http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm?fuseac...propertyID=555
Laundry Lofts building which will incorporate the 1907 Electric Laundry Company Building

My sarcastic remark about Sadaam was meant to imply that he went ahead and built dozens of projects (palaces) around his country with no regard for cost or taste. He had no one (bankers, environmentalists, planning commissions, etc.) to try to appease.

The firestation building at Cosmo Square goes away. A new station in planned to be built in the middle of the block along 8th.

The Firestation Building does not go away. It is preserved as is and becomes part of the Retail Program for that project.

Yea the firestation is staying for which I am glad because it is a wonderful piece of architecture.

It seems like all the really cool designs for residential towers seem to be on hold: Cosmo Square, and Embassy, while all the not so inspiring projects get built: Alta and Vantage Point. I feel for being such a prime location Bosa should have done MUCH more with the design of the Legend than they did.

You are right. That just puts another nail in their coffin. You can't spend $6 million for a 7000 sf historic building on a 4500 sf lot to be used for retail.

I noticed that they were able to get more units by lowering the roof heights.

Spend $6 million? What are you talking about. You do not get charged against your FAR for street level retail, and you get FAR bonuses for Historic Remodels and building public projects, which they are doing both. That is why they added floors. Their developable space grew.

maybe the walk seems so long because of the lack of street activity:(

Lets do the math.

The site has an FAR of 6. So, the 4500 sf that they are committing $6 million towards (by building a new firehouse) will net them 27,000 sf of building (4500 sf x 6).

At $6 million, they are paying $222 per FAR foot. Then they have to build it at $275 psf. Now their basis in this 27,000 sf is $497 psf.

They also still have the cost to refurbish the old 7,000 sf firehouse and build it out as new retail space. Nevermind that the TR Produce The Legend, The Mark, DiamondView Tower and The Omni all still have have plenty of retail space available right now.

Sounds expensive to me.

In my list of projects that incorporate historic structures, how could I forget to include Electra's use of the of old power plant building :rolleyes:


No, it's just that I'm too damn lazy to walk that far sometimes. Besides, it's much easier and funner to just take the trolley to LI.


Perhaps they can convert part of this structure into office condos like TR Produce across the street?

Give it some time, and that corridor will do just fine once the area begins to mature.

As someone who lives smack in the middle of this corridoor, I agree that it will be fine n the long run. I personally don't think that there is any demand for additional sq. footage in this area until some of the empty space (and hundreds of residential units in Pacific Terrace, ICON, The Mark, The Lengend) fills up.

^^Agreed, but wouldn't you say that nearly half of the units (if not more) have been pre-sold in all of the projects you mentioned above? You make it sound like it's going to be a barren wasteland out there when these developments are completed. Let's wait and see how many people and commercial/retail tenants actually move into these projects when they are done.



Here's an interesting and informative article from last Monday's SD Daily Transcript about Nat Bosa and his future plans for DTSD. In it, he talks about other proposals we haven't even heard about. According to him, the next residential boom will be in 2 years, and I can live with that. Let's just hope he works with a new architect by then ;) (Sorry for the poor scan quality and small size)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...Misc/bosa2.jpg

That's just what they don't get charged against them. The also get FAR Bonuses for providing public projects. I don't know the deal that they worked out, but it is somewhere between 1.0 - 1.5 Bonus. That counts towards the entire site, which could result in anywhere from 60 - 90,000 additional GSF. Now, you divide your 6 million cost into that, its $66 - 100 per GSF.

I don't pretend to have any inside information on this site but here are the sq. footages listed for Cosmo Square

Residential 326,500
Office 16,700
Retail/Commercial 12,700
Public/Civic 12,600

It adds up to 368,500 sf on a 60,000 sf full block. That equates to a 6.14 FAR. If they can in fact get density bonuses to 7.0 FAR (420,000 sf) or 7.5 FAR (450,000 sf) they aren't using it. Therefore, the acquisition of the additonal 4500 sf firehouse site is NOT accretive to the transaction, it is dilutive. Obviously, the City might make it a Condition of Approval to relocate the firehouse but it is certainly not a very good deal for the developer.