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)

SDfan Oct 24, 2013 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6312553)

Mehhh. But at least it looks a smidgen taller than the others.

Chapelo Oct 24, 2013 12:16 AM

From what I gathered, a 25 story tower is planned, but will be entirely Class A office space.

spoonman Oct 24, 2013 1:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chapelo (Post 6313495)
From what I gathered, a 25 story tower is planned, but will be entirely Class A office space.

That rendering does not look like 25 floors. Did you read that in the story?

tyleraf Oct 24, 2013 2:42 AM

I sure hope La Jolla Commons 3 is 25 floors. It will add some desperately needed variety. Also at least this one is designed by Pei Cobb Freed.

eburress Oct 24, 2013 4:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6313659)
I sure hope La Jolla Commons 3 is 25 floors. It will add some desperately needed variety. Also at least this one is designed by Pei Cobb Freed.

There's no way they could build a 20+ story building on that site because it's right in Miramar's flight path. They were lucky (i.e., concessions) to build what they did.

mello Oct 24, 2013 5:06 AM

The Miramar flight path thing is so bogus those jets have plenty of time to get up in altitude before they are in that area. The runway is so long that even a fully loaded military cargo plane is easily 800 feet in the air by the time it would be going over La Jolla commons. A 25 floor office tower is what 380 feet? (Just looked on map and the runway at Miramar is actually way south of UTC btw, you would have to bank pretty hard to the North upon take off to be flying over La Jolla Village drive.)

Bummer about Hazard Center still being two years off :( That project sounds sweet, row homes and two residential towers... I thought that might get going sooner.

tyleraf Oct 24, 2013 5:17 AM

Sad to hear how far off hazard center is. I'm glad it's still alive though. I was beginning to wonder if this project was dead. It will add some much needed density to mission valley.

spoonman Oct 24, 2013 5:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6313777)
Sad to hear how far off hazard center is. I'm glad it's still alive though. I was beginning to wonder if this project was dead. It will add some much needed density to mission valley.

Very true.

At least Doug Manchester's development at the UT headquarters seems to be moving forward soon. With those, plus Hazard Center, that is a lot of new towers, all of which will be close to the train.

spoonman Oct 24, 2013 6:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6313762)
There's no way they could build a 20+ story building on that site because it's right in Miramar's flight path. They were lucky (i.e., concessions) to build what they did.

A while back I had read something to the effect that the builder had to buy the airport (Miramar) special radar equipment, so that they could build higher. The article suggested that this is a normal practice. Is this what "concessions" you are referring to?

As Mello eluded to, being hostage to all of these airports is tiring. Where there aren't airports, there are NIMBYs. Oh well, there is a lot of exciting development starting to happen.

Nerv Oct 24, 2013 6:42 AM

Having grown up in La Jolla I can say I've never heard of UTC having a height limit due to Miramar. I've seen people post that they "think" it has one but does it?

If there was/is a height restriction I can say I've never seen it in print or brought up by anyone in the city unlike the downtown restriction.

Now I'm not saying I'm not wrong and maybe there is a height limit but I'd like someone to post where it's been brought up "officially" somewhere cause I'm clueless to ever hearing that before.:???:

eburress Oct 24, 2013 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6313790)
A while back I had read something to the effect that the builder had to buy the airport (Miramar) special radar equipment, so that they could build higher. The article suggested that this is a normal practice. Is this what "concessions" you are referring to?

As Mello eluded to, being hostage to all of these airports is tiring. Where there aren't airports, there are NIMBYs. Oh well, there is a lot of exciting development starting to happen.

Yes, the new radar is what I'm referring to, and that's what allowed them to build to the current height. Mayble they'll buy Miramar another, fancier radar (barf). hahaha

I agree though. Safety concerns are legitimate considerations, but I think they (the FAA, USMC, USN, etc) are overdoing it in many instances.

Nerv Oct 24, 2013 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6314158)
Yes, the new radar is what I'm referring to, and that's what allowed them to build to the current height. Mayble they'll buy Miramar another, fancier radar (barf). hahaha

I agree though. Safety concerns are legitimate considerations, but I think they (the FAA, USMC, USN, etc) are overdoing it in many instances.

So again I ask, where are you guys seeing a height limit posted by the FAA for UTC? Is it 400 feet? 500? I really never have heard of this before.:???:

spoonman Oct 24, 2013 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 6314464)
So again I ask, where are you guys seeing a height limit posted by the FAA for UTC? Is it 400 feet? 500? I really never have heard of this before.:???:

Below is the doc for the UTC revelopment plan, which includes new high-rises. Somewhere in this doc I believe height limits are noted for different buildings, depending on where they are on the mall parking lot.

On page 98, it does mention that the tallest residential buildings will be 293 ft, but this may be an arbitrary number.

I have read numerous times now, that any building in the UTC area must be reviewed by the FAA (or is it airport authority) if it is over 200ft.

http://docs.sandiego.gov/councildock...rt_7_of_12.pdf

Nerv Oct 24, 2013 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6314498)
Below is the doc for the UTC revelopment plan, which includes new high-rises. Somewhere in this doc I believe height limits are noted for different buildings, depending on where they are on the mall parking lot.

On page 98, it does mention that the tallest residential buildings will be 293 ft, but this may be an arbitrary number.

I have read numerous times now, that any building in the UTC area must be reviewed by the FAA (or is it airport authority) if it is over 200ft.

http://docs.sandiego.gov/councildock...rt_7_of_12.pdf



Thanks. When I have some time I'll go through it. :tup:

spoonman Oct 25, 2013 3:45 PM

I would have thought that La Jolla Commons would not have to have received approval from FAA/Airport Authority on those towers, as they are likely just under 200ft (15 floors).

tyleraf Oct 25, 2013 6:26 PM

The approval was for the old 300 ft towers that were planned there.

mello Oct 25, 2013 10:08 PM

Well once the Commons III and Irvine tower are complete along with that nice new medical facility I will say that UTC will be a "decent" secondary skyline for the SD metro area. The only thing that sucks is the way it is positioned geographically there isn't a good spot to get a nice angle of the skyline.

I have always wanted to climb up the hill where the 52 reaches its crest to see what it would look like from there. Where do you guys think is the best angle to view that skyline from?

tyleraf Oct 26, 2013 12:52 AM

Mello: One of my favorite spots to see the UTC skyline is from the 15-163 carpool lane ramp even though it is pretty distant you can see the skyline as a whole.

SDCAL Oct 26, 2013 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransAustin (Post 6312458)
:/ Having mixed feelings about that one.

You and me both, had some great times at Mandarin House. Love the old school vibe.

Any renderings of what will replace it?

SDCAL Oct 26, 2013 1:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6312517)
The coastal commission sued Manchester construction is scheduled to start at the earliest in 2015. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...ommission-sue/

I know others may disagree because it would mean this site remains with those decaying military buildings longer, but I'm hoping NBC gets totally shot down and it's put out for bid so we can get a better, more dynamic design.

It's such prime waterfront property and Manchester's plan is mediocre. Yes, it's of course better than what's there, but it could be so much better for that iconic site.

What's the deal with that land anyway? Is it owned by Manchester or by the city or by the military?

If the commission rejects it then what happens, I wonder. Does Manchester try to improve the plan or does it open up to other developers?


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.