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)

tyleraf Dec 3, 2013 9:35 AM

Wait! Spoonman, did you say that pinnacle is now also developing India and Beech?

spoonman Dec 3, 2013 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6361020)
Wait! Spoonman, did you say that pinnacle is now also developing India and Beech?

http://martinezcutri.com/projects/11th-broadway/

^It's the same architect (according to Civic SD), but different developer.

Here is the link to the developer's site for India & Beech.

http://www.indiaandbeech.com/

Leo the Dog Dec 3, 2013 6:19 PM

San
 
Regarding SAN: I think you guys should be careful what you wish for. A new, larger, sprawling airport at Miramar would be an absolute disaster for the "city" of San Diego. It *might* be better for the county region many decades from now. (sd county is about as large as the state of Mass!) I used to live in Boston. They too have an inner-city airport with congestion issues, nestled in with dense neighborhoods, along the harbor, closer to DT than SAN is. This is an absolute asset for the city. Boston has arguably one of the best DT skylines and residential density in the core all while having stubby buildings just like SD.

There certainly are positives for the move, but the negatives far outweigh these. Those potential direct connections to Asia and Europe would just steer business to North County and UTC areas. Why wouldn't a north county suburb build a massive convention center to capture all that tax revenue. DTSD would flounder for decades, hotels, restaurants, clubs and even future high-rise housing would suffer.

SD Is a convention and tourism town...that's it. We don't need buildings over 500 feet. Our current DT is successful due to the close proximity of the airport. Our convention center has one of the best locations in the nation, due largely in part from its close proximity to the airport.

Do you really want a DIA in San Diego city limits? Miramar would fill-up with low density sprawl development, Hampton Inns, Chili's, maybe an office park with surface parking. There would be no train lines connecting to the airport. It would all be auto-oriented development, further stressing the 805 and 15 freeways.

Limbergh Field development would take decades to develop due to environmental issues, NIMBYs, infrastructure stress on the roads. The airport is also close to the trollies, close to the surfliner, the coaster, maybe HSR, tourists destinations such as PB, Mission, Coronado, Balboa Park.

The loss of Miramar base would be devastating to the city of SD. This is a HUGE, constant flow of Washington dollars into the SD economy.

mello Dec 3, 2013 6:54 PM

So how can a metro area like Seattle which is 500k or so larger than ours but is not at all as big of a tourist/convention city have Germany, Dubai, and Seoul flights? I believe they have a Tokyo and Shanghai as well...

I know they have a larger corporate base with Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon but still they really aren't much bigger at all then us and they have a great line up of international flights?

Leo: Miramar is not that far at all from downtown I don't think it would "kill downtown business" like you said. An airport at Brown Field or 5 to 10 miles farther north then Miramar might make an impact but I would say MMR is a pretty sweet spot, still very close to beaches and such.

Urbanize_It Dec 3, 2013 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6361390)
Regarding SAN: I think you guys should be careful what you wish for. A new, larger, sprawling airport at Miramar would be an absolute disaster for the "city" of San Diego. It *might* be better for the county region many decades from now. (sd county is about as large as the state of Mass!) I used to live in Boston. They too have an inner-city airport with congestion issues, nestled in with dense neighborhoods, along the harbor, closer to DT than SAN is. This is an absolute asset for the city. Boston has arguably one of the best DT skylines and residential density in the core all while having stubby buildings just like SD.

There certainly are positives for the move, but the negatives far outweigh these. Those potential direct connections to Asia and Europe would just steer business to North County and UTC areas. Why wouldn't a north county suburb build a massive convention center to capture all that tax revenue. DTSD would flounder for decades, hotels, restaurants, clubs and even future high-rise housing would suffer.

SD Is a convention and tourism town...that's it. We don't need buildings over 500 feet. Our current DT is successful due to the close proximity of the airport. Our convention center has one of the best locations in the nation, due largely in part from its close proximity to the airport.

Do you really want a DIA in San Diego city limits? Miramar would fill-up with low density sprawl development, Hampton Inns, Chili's, maybe an office park with surface parking. There would be no train lines connecting to the airport. It would all be auto-oriented development, further stressing the 805 and 15 freeways.

Limbergh Field development would take decades to develop due to environmental issues, NIMBYs, infrastructure stress on the roads. The airport is also close to the trollies, close to the surfliner, the coaster, maybe HSR, tourists destinations such as PB, Mission, Coronado, Balboa Park.

The loss of Miramar base would be devastating to the city of SD. This is a HUGE, constant flow of Washington dollars into the SD economy.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks Leo!

Streamliner Dec 3, 2013 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 6360717)
That's another reason I didn't think it looked like San Diego at first....



San Diego doesn't get towers that look that nice. :haha:

I know what you mean. There aren't nearly enough balconies for this to be realistic.

Urbanize_It Dec 3, 2013 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6361475)
So how can a metro area like Seattle which is 500k or so larger than ours but is not at all as big of a tourist/convention city have Germany, Dubai, and Seoul flights? I believe they have a Tokyo and Shanghai as well...

I know they have a larger corporate base with Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon but still they really aren't much bigger at all then us and they have a great line up of international flights?

Leo: Miramar is not that far at all from downtown I don't think it would "kill downtown business" like you said. An airport at Brown Field or 5 to 10 miles farther north then Miramar might make an impact but I would say MMR is a pretty sweet spot, still very close to beaches and such.

Demand.

Because, even though it kind of sucks to admit it sometimes, San Diego is a tourism and military driven “beach town” while Seattle is an American “City”. This is what the rest of the country and world thinks of the two of us. They also don’t have LA, OC, IE, and TJ airports within easy driving distance to compete with… To me this is not a complicated issue. We could build it, but I believe they would not come. Being good in business means playing well to your strengths, of which, catering to Fortune 500 companies and being a hub airport city, San Diego does not possess.

spoonman Dec 3, 2013 8:16 PM

Many good points from all sides. This is water under the bridge, but a few points of clarification...

- The Amtrak and Coaster rail line actually enter well into Miramar, passing close to the end of the runway.

- The trolley line to UTC (to be operational in 2018) will be only 1 mile from the edge of Miramar.

- We also know that if high-speed ever gets built (probably not for decades), the line would pass by Miramar in some fashion.

Intermodal transportation would not be a reason not to use Miramar as a new site. That said, the location could be a deterrent to downtown tourism as pointed out.

Also, Boeing is not based in Seattle, but does have significant operations there. For the record, Qualcomm has as much operating income as Boeing and Amazon put together. Does not change the fact that Seattle has done a better job attracting more Fortune 500 companies, but is worth noting.

Derek Dec 3, 2013 9:40 PM

Seattle's airport is also nowhere near downtown Seattle, in fact it's 14 miles away. However, a light rail line directly links the airport to downtown Seattle. Just throwing it out there. :)

SDfan Dec 3, 2013 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6361390)
Regarding SAN: I think you guys should be careful what you wish for. A new, larger, sprawling airport at Miramar would be an absolute disaster for the "city" of San Diego. It *might* be better for the county region many decades from now. (sd county is about as large as the state of Mass!)

An "absolute disaster" or "might be better" for the future, which one is it?

Quote:

I used to live in Boston. They too have an inner-city airport with congestion issues, nestled in with dense neighborhoods, along the harbor, closer to DT than SAN is. This is an absolute asset for the city. Boston has arguably one of the best DT skylines and residential density in the core all while having stubby buildings just like SD.
Comparing San Diego to Boston is like comparing an apple to a steak. Boston was developed as a dense urban center centuries ago. San Diego is a hamlet turned metropolis in the last 50 years. Just because Boston has an airport close to its core doesn't mean it's more dense because of it. There is something called history that clears out that argument.

Airport vicinity does not affect density levels. If Miramar was developed as an airport, I doubt Scripps Ranch or La Jolla would be racking in higher densities, nor would downtown or any of the urban neighborhoods lose their footing in gentrifying/growing up. Why? Not because SAN does or doesn't move, but because certain neighborhoods are zoned for certain densities.

Come on people, this is urban planning 101.

Quote:

There certainly are positives for the move, but the negatives far outweigh these. Those potential direct connections to Asia and Europe would just steer business to North County and UTC areas. Why wouldn't a north county suburb build a massive convention center to capture all that tax revenue. DTSD would flounder for decades, hotels, restaurants, clubs and even future high-rise housing would suffer.
I doubt this, critically. We don't live in Texas or Georgia where our suburbs are desperately trying to poach our city's industries. I mean, really? Look who's up north. Who's going to build a convention center? Encinitas, where they just passed a voter referendum essentially blocking all zoning changes? Carlsbad, which is almost built out completely? Oceanside, which couldn't even entertain the idea of a Charger's Stadium for longer than 2 seconds? Nothing north of us would take the crown as the new central urban center. PS, UTC is in the city of San Diego, so unless our city leaders want to cannibalize themselves, I don't see why you're worried about that.

Yeah, we don't have sharks up there...

Quote:

SD Is a convention and tourism town...that's it. We don't need buildings over 500 feet. Our current DT is successful due to the close proximity of the airport. Our convention center has one of the best locations in the nation, due largely in part from its close proximity to the airport.
I don't think there is any way to gauge visitor preference for airport location in this debate. However, I doubt that the main consideration for all visitors and convention center bookings have to do with SAN. We have things like good weather, and a nice downtown, and a large hotel base, and destinations like Sea World and the Zoo, and did I mention the weather? No one wants to go to Chicago in January for a stuffy convention of medical/hospitality/military/etc. nerds, nor would they shun a visit to San Diego because the airport is too far. If that was true, no one would go to Tokyo, Seoul, or any other city with an airport more than 10 miles away.

I'm sure if SAN moved we wouldn't see much of a drop in tourism/conventions as a result. Think about it: "Oh no, the San Diego airport is 20 minutes father from downtown than it used to be... guess we're going to Topeka!" (did I forget to mention the weather?)

Quote:

Do you really want a DIA in San Diego city limits? Miramar would fill-up with low density sprawl development, Hampton Inns, Chili's, maybe an office park with surface parking.
This would be problematic. You don't lose points here.

Quote:

There would be no train lines connecting to the airport. It would all be auto-oriented development, further stressing the 805 and 15 freeways.
Take out a Thomas Guide or google San Diego's rail lines. Then research San Diego's rail future through SANDAG, and yeah... They all kind of do this weird thing where they pass through or by Miramar. I don't know, it's really odd, but it's true. Go look it up.

Quote:

Limbergh Field development would take decades to develop due to environmental issues, NIMBYs, infrastructure stress on the roads.
This is true.

Quote:

The airport is also close to the trollies, close to the surfliner, the coaster, maybe HSR, tourists destinations such as PB, Mission, Coronado, Balboa Park.
Just because something is closer doesn't make it better or more efficient automatically. Just because it's more convenient location-wise to downtown, doesn't make it better all around. That's not logical at all.

Quote:

The loss of Miramar base would be devastating to the city of SD. This is a HUGE, constant flow of Washington dollars into the SD economy.
No doubt about it, but San Diego's future shouldn't be dictated by the military industrial complex that we've been a slave to for the last century. Clinging to something that isn't necessary (which by the way, future BRACs may determine to be true) while also holding us back isn't forward thinking or progressive. It hinders our economy and the lessens our potential. But hey, San Diego has been doing this to itself for years, so why not another century of masochistic economic and development policy?


Now I don't mean to be a dick, but I will say to my pro-Miramar friends that it ain't going to happen. We live in one of the least progressive cities in terms of infrastructure and development planning. We are the Barry Goldwater of train, planes, and cars. It will not happen even if Miramar is closed through BRAC. Why? Partially because San Diegans are short sighted, small minded, and think they live in a community of 300 people, not 3 million. We like our ways and we leave it at that. Secondly, Miramar would mean airplanes over La Jolla, Scripps Ranch, and UTC. I don't know about you, but if there were ever NIMBY communities not to piss off, it would be the neighborhoods to the north. Need I remind anyone of the hell that One Paseo is going through in Carmel Valley? Imagine all of those sparkling, privileged neighborhoods teaming up against any Miramar effort?

No airport up there. Ever. La Jolla would need to slide into the Pacific, and Scripps Ranch would need to burn in another wild fire before that gets through.

Sorry.

tyleraf Dec 3, 2013 11:47 PM

County Board of Supervisors unanimously backs Olympic Bid for 2024! http://www.sandiego6.com/story/san-d...mpics-20131203

SDfan Dec 3, 2013 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6361931)
County Board of Supervisors unanimously backs Olympic Bid for 2024! http://www.sandiego6.com/story/san-d...mpics-20131203

YAY! Even if the bid never happens or fails, it could provide us with a positive blueprint for improving our regions future in a greater sense than any SANDAG report on freeway circulation ever could. :D

mello Dec 4, 2013 12:16 AM

"Scripps Ranch would need to burn in another wild fire before that gets through".

Look at a map the runway at Mira Mar is well South of Scripps ranch so planes coming in for a landing would not be flying over head in SR at all. It would probably be like when you first enter South Park after that Canyon. You could see them just to the South but the noise wouldn't be that bad. I lived on Ivy Street in South Park for 3 months and the noise wasn't a bother you could hear it but 6 blocks south it was terrible of course.

Regarding La Jolla if the runway was set back enough the noise wouldn't be too bad it would probably be like New Port beach since John Wayne is another mile or two farther inland than Lindbergh field when they pass over the beach in Newport they aren't that loud really. Once again noticeable but not WTF! loud like in Point Loma.

SDfan Dec 4, 2013 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6361962)
"Scripps Ranch would need to burn in another wild fire before that gets through".

Look at a map the runway at Mira Mar is well South of Scripps ranch so planes coming in for a landing would not be flying over head in SR at all. It would probably be like when you first enter South Park after that Canyon. You could see them just to the South but the noise wouldn't be that bad. I lived on Ivy Street in South Park for 3 months and the noise wasn't a bother you could hear it but 6 blocks south it was terrible of course.

Regarding La Jolla if the runway was set back enough the noise wouldn't be too bad it would probably be like New Port beach since John Wayne is another mile or two farther inland than Lindbergh field when they pass over the beach in Newport they aren't that loud really. Once again noticeable but not WTF! loud like in Point Loma.

"Aren't that loud really" is pretty subjective when you're messing with people's property values. I don't care if you can hear the airport loud or not, the people living nearby would have field day if they were told there would be a 24 hour commercial airport in their backyard.

I live in Golden Hill, and the noise is redundant but negligible. But that's because it has been like this, and will probably always be like this, and I'm used to it.

Imagine buying a multimillion dollar home in La Jolla, or even a nice 400k-600k place in Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch, or University City. Then imagine being told a large international airport was going to be built in your little slice of heaven.

Community opposition much? Hell yeah. You have to be realistic here. Are you right about Miramar in terms of efficiency, need, and logic? Yes. You are.

But this is San Diego, and we don't play by those rules. If it blocks my view, makes too much noise, or ruins my privileged aesthetic, then hell no.

Don't mean to be a debby downer, just looking at the facts on the NIMBY ground.

mello Dec 4, 2013 12:58 AM

University City will get shredded yes that will be like Ocean Beach now, not quite as bad as the hills of Loma Portal which are terrible. Scripps ranch actually would be akin to Redwood Street in North Park or Schwitzer Canyon just South of there. And remember that jet engines will only get quieter over time. Have you heard how quiet the 787 is? Its amazing that thing is so nice. So the technology is there is will just take time for it to be put in to commercial use.


I think the realistic solution is Palomar Airport becoming like a mini Ft. Lauderdale maybe eventually handling 5 million passengers a year while Tijuana handles maybe 2 million per year that Lindbergh would have handled other wise so that 7 million total will put us at 28 to 30 mill or so per year combined with SAN that should be sufficient.

spoonman Dec 4, 2013 3:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6362012)
University City will get shredded yes that will be like Ocean Beach now, not quite as bad as the hills of Loma Portal which are terrible. Scripps ranch actually would be akin to Redwood Street in North Park or Schwitzer Canyon just South of there. And remember that jet engines will only get quieter over time. Have you heard how quiet the 787 is? Its amazing that thing is so nice. So the technology is there is will just take time for it to be put in to commercial use.


I think the realistic solution is Palomar Airport becoming like a mini Ft. Lauderdale maybe eventually handling 5 million passengers a year while Tijuana handles maybe 2 million per year that Lindbergh would have handled other wise so that 7 million total will put us at 28 to 30 mill or so per year combined with SAN that should be sufficient.

Eventually the city will kick the remaining General Aviation out of SAN, freeing additional runway capacity, ultimately buying more time.

********************

I'm curious if people here had to pick, would you opt to build a new airport at Miramar, or build sterile US terminals at TIJ, which would you pick?

Miramar would not have to be shared, and would be more central than TIJ. TIJ however would combine SAN and TIJ traffic, and could create some synergy as a regional hub.

It is hard to identify which would have a lower cost, as both facilities already have runways, but no usable terminals.

spoonman Dec 4, 2013 4:35 AM

This article is timely given all of the airport discussion...

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...mall-business/

Highlights include:

- New Rental Car structure
- Roadway around runway to transport rental car customers (and likely for future service to the trolley stop)
- New Landmark Avitaion FBO/Terminal
- Old rental car land near Harbor Island to be redeveloped by Port of San Diego
- Teledyne Ryan land to be used by airport
- Terminal 1 is being reviewed for replacement

airlinersdotnet Dec 4, 2013 5:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6360999)
This really isn't the case. There are 15 airlines with the 787. Only one operates it to SAN. Airlines aren't flying to SAN because of the runway or facilities. They aren't flying to SAN because the planes would be empty.

Well, of those 15, only a fraction are running flights to the USA with their 787s. And most don't have that many really, maybe 2 or 3 frames...so your point is a little misleading.

BA flies a 777-200 into and out of SAN. The weight restrictions on the outbound flight aren't too bad on that aircraft. There has always been demand for LHR service. The flight is doing quite well.

For the 787-800 there is not much in the way of restrictions (read - more cargo). For this very reason, to think that the ONLY thing restricting international long-haul service to SAN is demand, is foolish. The 787 is proof. It's about yields, not how many seats you fill...

There is absolutely demand for additional international service to Europe with the 787. SAN could support another direct link to Europe - either to CDG or FRA. Problem is neither Air France or Luftansa have 787's.

I also believe service to south east asia, perhaps through Phillippine Airlines is a possibility, if they fly a SAN-YVR-MNL route.

I could also see the 787 or A350 opening a route to Australia on Qantas. They could easily code-share with the British Airways flight to LHR or any American Airlines flight as they all belong to the same alliance.

Derek Dec 4, 2013 5:43 AM

I remember Philippine Airlines was going to start service to San Diego a few years ago, but it was cancelled when their safety rating was downgraded. :(

TransAustin Dec 4, 2013 8:07 AM

Pretty cool infographic I found
http://www.selfstorage.com/content/s...e/#lightbox/0/


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 PM.

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