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)

Nerv Jan 23, 2014 2:09 AM

Does Chula Vista have a height limit planned as they develop their bay-front?


Also does anyone know what floor they are up to on the first tower of the 15th and island project?:???:

SDfan Jan 23, 2014 3:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6417385)
The market may be soft, but that does not change the fact that there are only 2 square miles in this city in which high rise development isn't scrutinized by NIMBYs. In the past 10 years, there have been at least 50 or more projects, which have taken up 1/2 or more of a city block. Another 10 years in a rebounded economy and yes, most of downtown will be filled out, save for some underutilized developments whose owners may not wish to sell (you can't expect everyone to sell...this is not Sim City after all).

Agreed. :cheers:

SDfan Jan 23, 2014 3:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 6417277)
Why are you guys so fixated on taller buildings? I know this is a "skyscraper" forum, but isn't a healthy, urban environment more important?

I don't think asking for a 10-20 story building constitutes as asking for a lot in terms of height. Then again, this is a region where 3 stories is considered a "high-rise."

We all want healthy urban environments, but I'm interested in that correlating with a higher number of housing units being built in this city. You can put more in when you put more on top.

And *ding, ding, ding* you are correct, this is skyscraper forum. Who would have thought we'd all be interested in the same thing on a forum specific for this topic. Way to go Derek. :rolleyes:

What I don't get is why people question high-rise development in the one area designated for such development. I'm starting to get confused here. Or maybe just reading all of this wrong.

SDfan Jan 23, 2014 3:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 6418433)
Does Chula Vista have a height limit planned as they develop their bay-front?


Also does anyone know what floor they are up to on the first tower of the 15th and island project?:???:

Chula Vista is 300', although I think 250' is going to be more realistic.

As for 15th and Island, I think they're moving just above ground from the parking structure.

Derek Jan 23, 2014 3:23 AM

I'm not sure why my question warranted sarcasm, it was a legitimate question. There's nothing wrong at all 10-20 story buildings, but there's multiple people on here pushing for 50 story tall buildings in Mission Valley of all places, are complaining about height limits, and aren't satisfied with "just a mid rise". I just found that a bit odd is all.

I'd rather have a dense urban core filled with 10-20 story buildings filled with working class people who will actually utilize their neighborhood with cheaper rents for ground floor retail than dozens of parking lots because luxury apartment and condo towers aren't getting built on them because the market doesn't support them and even if they were getting built, the people moving into them still drive their cars other places because the ground floor retail spaces rents are too high to support retail. Yes, that was a run-on sentence. No, I don't care.



I drove my car into a bridge...

SDfan Jan 23, 2014 4:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 6418540)
I'm not sure why my question warranted sarcasm

Look at the URL, and tell me that again.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong at all 10-20 story buildings, but there's multiple people on here pushing for 50 story tall buildings in Mission Valley of all places, are complaining about height limits, and aren't satisfied with "just a mid rise". I just found that a bit odd is all.
Let them dream, you and I both know it ain't going to happen. I'm just not surprised nor do I question that you'd find them here on skyscraperpage.

Quote:

I'd rather have a dense urban core filled with 10-20 story buildings filled with working class people who will actually utilize their neighborhood with cheaper rents for ground floor retail than dozens of parking lots because luxury apartment and condo towers aren't getting built on them because the market doesn't support them and even if they were getting built, the people moving into them still drive their cars other places because the ground floor retail spaces rents are too high to support retail. Yes, that was a run-on sentence.
Agreed.

Quote:

No, I don't care.
Obviously.

Quote:

I drove my car into a bridge...
Well that sucks.

Derek Jan 23, 2014 7:14 AM

:cheers:

spoonman Jan 23, 2014 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 6418433)

Also does anyone know what floor they are up to on the first tower of the 15th and island project?:???:

This is a pic of 15th & Island from December (credit to Bill Adams[?] from Urbdezine). I imagine it must be taller by now.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/1...2a467f9b_b.jpg

SDfan Jan 23, 2014 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 6418731)
:cheers:

:cheers:

Bertrice Jan 23, 2014 6:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6419056)
This is a pic of 15th & Island from December (credit to Bill Adams[?] from Urbdezine). I imagine it must be taller by now.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/1...2a467f9b_b.jpg

about 8
http://www.earthcam.net/projects/bridgehousing/

spoonman Jan 23, 2014 6:50 PM

^^ Thanks, but those are 2 different buildings.

S.DviaPhilly Jan 23, 2014 8:43 PM

Pics from Pinnacle's 15th and Island - 1.23.2014
 
With all this talk of 15th and Island, I took a stroll over there today and snapped a couple pics. Solid progress!

View from 14th in between Island and J
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...pse2856a21.jpg

View from J in between 14th and 15th
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...ps19ee6031.jpg

View from corner of 15th and J
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...psfe32ac5f.jpg

Bertrice Jan 23, 2014 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6419404)
^^ Thanks, but those are 2 different buildings.

My bad

spoonman Jan 23, 2014 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly (Post 6419668)
With all this talk of 15th and Island, I took a stroll over there today and snapped a couple pics. Solid progress!

Wow, it's great to see the tower becoming defined against the rest of the podium structure. Looks like they've completed the 6th floor...only about 40 more to go!

tyleraf Jan 24, 2014 2:47 AM

Wow! 15th and Island looks great. I can't wait to see it start to make an impact.

spoonman Jan 24, 2014 4:33 AM

At 1 floor per week, this should top out in October :frog:

aerogt3 Jan 24, 2014 9:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6417385)
The market may be soft, but that does not change the fact that there are only 2 square miles in this city in which high rise development isn't scrutinized by NIMBYs. In the past 10 years, there have been at least 50 or more projects, which have taken up 1/2 or more of a city block. Another 10 years in a rebounded economy and yes, most of downtown will be filled out, save for some underutilized developments whose owners may not wish to sell (you can't expect everyone to sell...this is not Sim City after all).

How long do you think it will be before downtown is so full, that the only land left is the land occupied by the stadium? Basically the point against the stadium is "the stadium is taking land that would otherwise be filled with high rises." My view is that the stadium does not compete with high rises. It's not build the stadium, OR build high rises there. If that was truly the case, 4 story stucco boxes wouldn't be popping up in the core of downtown. Right there isn't demand for anything. In 10 or 15 years the demand will be for low budget mid rises. So build the stadium, and let it create the demand for surrounding towers.

People are wildly unrealistic in this forum. If you oppose a stadium because it wastes high rise land, then you should oppose all the crappy mid rises going up because they waste that land, too. And oppose the grocery outlets, or all the parking lots. Leaving every site vacant until a 40 story tower can be built on it is not how development works. Stadiums, malls, mid rises, etc. are built and that drives the density and development that eventually creates the demand to gradually replace low rises with mid rises and mid rises with high rises. But the attitude here is basically don't build anything, unless you can build mid town Manhattan. I think the attitudes on here would be way more harmful to real development then any NIMBYs, if they were ever taken seriously by the city.

aerogt3 Jan 24, 2014 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 6418540)
There's nothing wrong at all 10-20 story buildings, but there's multiple people on here pushing for 50 story tall buildings in Mission Valley of all places, are complaining about height limits, and aren't satisfied with "just a mid rise". I just found that a bit odd is all.

I'd rather have a dense urban core filled with 10-20 story buildings filled with working class people who will actually utilize their neighborhood with cheaper rents for ground floor retail than dozens of parking lots because luxury apartment and condo towers aren't getting built on them because the market doesn't support them and even if they were getting built, the people moving into them still drive their cars other places because the ground floor retail spaces rents are too high to support retail. Yes, that was a run-on sentence. No, I don't care.

Big +1 to your realism. I lived in the east village for 3 years, and it was annoying how empty the city is outside of bars on 5th. Almost ALL the ground floor spots in the flashy high rises are empty, but the older, low and mid rise buildings are all filled out with tennants. The neighborhood feels really dead other than Friday and Saturday nights.

There are lots of neighborhoods with zero high rises in San Francisco, but great city life because the area is filled out and inhabited by businesses. I'd rather have a stadium and modest developments wasting high rise land but creating a busy neighborhood than parking lots and empty gigantic towers.

S.DviaPhilly Jan 24, 2014 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6420575)
How long do you think it will be before downtown is so full, that the only land left is the land occupied by the stadium? Basically the point against the stadium is "the stadium is taking land that would otherwise be filled with high rises." My view is that the stadium does not compete with high rises. It's not build the stadium, OR build high rises there. If that was truly the case, 4 story stucco boxes wouldn't be popping up in the core of downtown. Right there isn't demand for anything. In 10 or 15 years the demand will be for low budget mid rises. So build the stadium, and let it create the demand for surrounding towers.

People are wildly unrealistic in this forum. If you oppose a stadium because it wastes high rise land, then you should oppose all the crappy mid rises going up because they waste that land, too. And oppose the grocery outlets, or all the parking lots. Leaving every site vacant until a 40 story tower can be built on it is not how development works. Stadiums, malls, mid rises, etc. are built and that drives the density and development that eventually creates the demand to gradually replace low rises with mid rises and mid rises with high rises. But the attitude here is basically don't build anything, unless you can build mid town Manhattan. I think the attitudes on here would be way more harmful to real development then any NIMBYs, if they were ever taken seriously by the city.

AMEN!!!! Look what Petco did for East Village! The urban sprawl it created along with all those residential and a couple commercial towers that were built (including Sempra Energy who is building a 15 story building across the street from Petco - signage to face field.) You have residential buildings such as The Mark, The Legend, Icon, Diamond Terrace, etc., all built within a couple years of the ballpark.

Why wouldn't a stadium have the same affect? I think we all agree that it would be used for more than just football. The Davis Cup tennis tournament is being held at Petco next week! Also, look at 15th and Island. If a stadium were to go in, the values of those condos would dramatically go up and maybe those people would have direct views into the field on the higher levels. I bet that plots of land for sale like where The Library Tower was supposed to go or the land at 16th and Island would sell immediately and get developed. I also agree that a stadium would only last 50-60 years, so by then hopefully downtown is developed, they can implode the stadium to build there, the airport will be somewhere else and you can build a new football stadium as part of the land redeveloped where the airport once was!!!!

spoonman Jan 24, 2014 7:23 PM

New (revived, actually) project in the Cortez neighborhood

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2...phere-project/

http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos...ebf11d604414e5


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32 PM.

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