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)

Leo the Dog Aug 28, 2014 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6708365)
Has anyone read this streetcar feasibility study? This study is different than the study done on a streetcar from downtown to Balboa Park. This study looks at building a streetcar line from downtown to Hillcrest, then east to Normal Street and/or Park Blvd. The cost for the line is somewhere between $150M-$200M. The study suggests that the line would be more useful than the Balboa Park line (which is a no-brainer).

Streetcar Feasibility Study

The Uptown Streetcar Feasibility Study has been completed and the Final Report is available to be viewed at the following link:
Final Uptown Streetcar Feasibility Study - May 2014

Much better alignment than Balboa Park. Hope this happens one day. Besides, SD will have that gondola thing taking people to the zoo from the bay front. :sly:

spoonman Aug 28, 2014 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6709225)
Much better alignment than Balboa Park. Hope this happens one day. Besides, SD will have that gondola thing taking people to the zoo from the bay front. :sly:

Haha, yeah, the gondola...lol I think the gondola is actually cool, provided it is not treated as an alternative to real transportation. :uhh:

Prahaboheme Aug 28, 2014 5:53 PM

Why this is not a first priority for trolley expansion, I don't know. The benefits to trolley expansion into Hillcrest / Uptown outweigh virtually any other proposed expansion plan, including the UCSD expansion, IMO.

What I don't like about this is the plan to terminate Phase II at Normal Street, and not extend it down Normal Street and terminate at Park Blvd, thus reaching residents more easily in University Heights, who would surely benefit from a mass transit connection like this. The study indicates that terminating at Normal Street is preferred due to economic / development potential, and that is great and all, but what about the potential for accessibility to key urban neighborhoods in the city? When will these people learn?

spoonman Aug 28, 2014 8:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme (Post 6709382)
Why this is not a first priority for trolley expansion, I don't know. The benefits to trolley expansion into Hillcrest / Uptown outweigh virtually any other proposed expansion plan, including the UCSD expansion, IMO.

What I don't like about this is the plan to terminate Phase II at Normal Street, and not extend it down Normal Street and terminate at Park Blvd, thus reaching residents more easily in University Heights, who would surely benefit from a mass transit connection like this. The study indicates that terminating at Normal Street is preferred due to economic / development potential, and that is great and all, but what about the potential for accessibility to key urban neighborhoods in the city? When will these people learn?

I believe the reason for the termination at Normal St (or Park Blvd) is that eventually the trolley (LRT) would run up Park Blvd and connect to the streetcar line at Park/University before cutting east toward North Park, etc.

mello Aug 28, 2014 10:23 PM

Just spoke with a realtor who has worked the downtown condo market for years and from what he has heard Bosa should break ground by February/March at the latest on Broadway. He said price points are creeping up to the per sq foot mark that he was targeting and Bosa had considered waiting till late 2015 to break ground but has now moved up the time table.

Height Limits uptown: Very disappointed with 50 feet in Mission Hills would really like to see it be 85 or so.

100 Feet in Hillcrest is a joke, 130 to 170 should really not be a problem for a dense inner urban area like this. I will write emails to those that Spoonman listed. Thank god Bankers Hill can be 150 I was going to be furious if it was less than that.

SDCAL Aug 28, 2014 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6708513)
Oops, I mean SDfan. :runaway:

Haha, yeah it wasn't me, but I will put my two cents in and say that some form of mass transit - preferably a trolley expansion - from Downtown to Uptown (Hillcrest/N Park/Balboa Park) is DESPERATELY needed.

It's always amazed me that I can get on the trolley downtown and go to the border or out to east county, but can't go up the hill to the mid-city area. I realize there are topography and space issues, but the most logical line to me would be up Park, a stop at the zoo, then up to Park/University area.

Think of all the tourists who stay downtown who would take it up to balboa park, or all the residents who live downtown who would take it up to the restaurants in HC /NP, or people who live in HC/NP could take it downtown and not have to worry about going out and having a few drinks then try to find a cab.

SDCAL Aug 28, 2014 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme (Post 6709382)
Why this is not a first priority for trolley expansion, I don't know. The benefits to trolley expansion into Hillcrest / Uptown outweigh virtually any other proposed expansion plan, including the UCSD expansion, IMO.

What I don't like about this is the plan to terminate Phase II at Normal Street, and not extend it down Normal Street and terminate at Park Blvd, thus reaching residents more easily in University Heights, who would surely benefit from a mass transit connection like this. The study indicates that terminating at Normal Street is preferred due to economic / development potential, and that is great and all, but what about the potential for accessibility to key urban neighborhoods in the city? When will these people learn?

I agree - as I stated above, this has perplexed me for years :uhh:

tyleraf Aug 30, 2014 2:40 AM

Good news for EV. 210 foot tall tower at 14th and K across from old library tower site.
http://www.civicsd.com/images/storie...an_8.29.14.pdf

HurricaneHugo Aug 30, 2014 5:01 AM

210 ft?

Boo!

tyleraf Sep 1, 2014 1:56 PM

It sounds like plans are coming together to replace the California Theater with a 35 story residential tower. It's unfortunate, but something needs to be done. Also, the article mentions Bosa's property between 8th and 9th. Maybe we will see some action there soon.
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/au...a-theater-fix/

mello Sep 2, 2014 8:46 PM

I just read that article too and never knew that BOSA owned property in that area, too bad they didn't give the address not sure if its just a parking lot or some funky 2 story sturcture.

Regarding the California Theatre. How many old Theaters of similar size do we really need downtown? We already seem to have plenty of venues downtown that are fairly small. Something large like the NOKIA in LA we could really use but to spend all that money to renovate this one on C Street and it probably wouldn't even come close to penciling out.

I think a 35 floor plus tower right there would be awesome. I'm very excited to see this move forward.

spoonman Sep 2, 2014 9:51 PM

I hate to see an old theater go, but something needs to happen there to clean up C Street. New resedential there would go a long way, and would help to reestablish the skyline of the Core district.

SDCAL Sep 3, 2014 2:04 AM

Even if opening it back up as a theater is not possible, why can't the building be restored and used as something else?

Why can't it be incorporated into vertical development, something similar to Electra?

I think the urban fabric of our city should include historic elements, it adds richness and vitality.

LosAngelesDreamin Sep 3, 2014 3:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6714716)
Even if opening it back up as a theater is not possible, why can't the building be restored and used as something else?

Why can't it be incorporated into vertical development, something similar to Electra?

I think the urban fabric of our city should include historic elements, it adds richness and vitality.

I agree... the city needs to save historic architecture as much as possible. Once its gone theres no going back... the world doesn't build this style anymore... lets preserve it and use the building as something else.. like a mixed use space and just build a tower on top but set back like u said, similar to electra.

aerogt3 Sep 3, 2014 7:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6714716)
I think the urban fabric of our city should include historic elements, it adds richness and vitality.

Things like that are so easy to say when you don't have to foot the 50 million dollar bill. :haha:

travis bickle Sep 3, 2014 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6714953)
Things like that are so easy to say when you don't have to foot the 50 million dollar bill. :haha:

Yeah... I've noticed a lot of people here are very generous with other people's money...

SDfan Sep 3, 2014 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6714716)
Even if opening it back up as a theater is not possible, why can't the building be restored and used as something else?

Why can't it be incorporated into vertical development, something similar to Electra?

I think the urban fabric of our city should include historic elements, it adds richness and vitality.

I prefer preserving older structures, but I don't think what Bosa did is comparable to the problems of the California. Bosa essentially gutted and hollowed out the old SDGE building, which was an old power station, and sold luxury condos with bayfront views. All they had to do was keep the facade and that's much cheaper than restoring an old theater. Plus, if you were to restore a theater you can't repurpose it for anything else except, well, theater, which hasn't been too lucrative lately. You can try different programming, but the Balboa (subsidized by the city) and the Birch (theater converted to small concert venue after years of lackluster business) haven't been to convincing of such efforts. Plus, you aren't selling high end condos or grade A office space, this is C street, not the bay.

At best, we could hope for the marquee, and maybe some of the exterior walls to be saved. Otherwise it's just not a profitable venture. Unless, of course, the city decides it wants to fund the rehab (not happening).

spoonman Sep 4, 2014 1:23 AM

Looks like 15th & Island is up to the 31st floor. The crane will have to be moved higher to complete the next 14 floors.

You can watch it here.

http://www.discoversd.com/webcams/

SDCAL Sep 4, 2014 3:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travis bickle (Post 6715390)
Yeah... I've noticed a lot of people here are very generous with other people's money...

Yeah, OTHER people's money. As if those who support preservation don't pay taxes.

I pay plenty of taxes, including property taxes for a place I have downtown.

I think I'm entitled to my opinion, but this "other people's money" argument is pretty disingenuous. If you don't think the theater is worth saving, make a logical argument like SDfan did instead of this ridiculous "other people's money" garbage. It reminds me of the people on Medicare who go around saying they are against their taxes going to socialized medicine. :koko:

spoonman Sep 4, 2014 4:15 AM

C


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:25 PM.

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