SkyscraperPage Forum - SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

Viewing Page 219 of 796

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4069526)

Perhaps the planning for the convention center and the adjacent hotels was not the best. Mediocrity is what government does best. But there is access to the waterfront in those areas. One can go down the road to Seaport village, thru the Hyatt, around on the bike trail and then go to the large park that is by the water. There are a number of ingress/egress options that I use often without much of a problem. There is an ongoing project behind the Convention Center that will make it more enjoyable and accessable. What is the solution? Tear them down?

Hugo, i just saw you already mentioned this idea prior to my post. Go with it.

The point is, it isn't EASILY accessible. You can access it, but it's a pain, and quite a journey to do so. The city should have definitely made it a point to express concern over this lack of access. Lack of view corridors or access points along these developments. A good topic for Hugo.

The solution is to do what they are doing, making the South and Northern edges of this Hotel grouping more inviting and make the lead in to the area more obvious.

Quote:

Manchester bullish on Navy Broadway
Developer Doug Manchester is optimistic about going ahead with the landmark Navy Broadway Complex project as soon as the lawsuits challenging it are settled, which is expected to be in the fourth quarter of this year.

That's what Manchester spokesman Perry Dealy told San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency Wednesday.

Dealy was asked by an agency board member if the project -- which includes an administration building for the Navy, hotels, offices and shops -- is still viable in the current economy.

"If anyone can answer that question with authority, God bless them. But we are committed to this project. It's the best urban waterfront development property," Dealy said. "When any development takes place, this will be the first location.This is A++."

He also said Manchester has been talking to hoteliers and is optimistic that he'll have takers when it is time to build those hotels.

"We're hopeful, considering this project will be open in 3 years, with phase 1," he said. "That's probably not a bad window to open the hotels."

He said the proposed expansion of the San Diego Convention Center, which would double the center's space, would greatly help them with the hotels.

Dealy discussed the legal timeline after the meeting. The developer, city and Navy have been sued by opponents who argue more environmental study is needed, given that the project started in the early 1990s and then got delayed by a recession.

Dealy said if there are appeals in those cases, the legal battle could drag on into 2010.

Quote:

Moores plans for BallPark Village stand
The sale of the Padres will not deter longstanding plans for Ballpark Village, the last big swath of undeveloped downtown land controlled by team owner John Moores.

Moores' development company, JMI Realty, is apparently going to keep the land because, according to a Thursday e-mail from company spokesman Steve Peace, "The Padres sale has no effect on Ballpark Village."

Peace said the company is going ahead with a large convention hotel on land just across Park Boulevard from Petco Park. JMI has had plans to resubmit an application that was pulled earlier because of a conflict of interest. Marriott Corp. was once going to run the hotel but retracted its offer.

JMI is partnering with Lennar Corp to build hotels, offices and housing at the Ballpark Village site.

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/new...log/index.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4069118)

I know a photographer who is coming from out of state to do a couple photoshoots with some local models. She is looking for a place downtown or somewhere else that has some contemporary highrises with roof top decks overlooking the city or ocean. Anyone have any ideas for some locations for these shoots? I know that SmartCorner, Icon, Marriott all have roof tops, but I need some help. Please chip in some ideas, and if you know of anyone who might be able to get her up to some of the roof top decks listed above or not listed please let me know. Thanks.

Don't forget about the rooftop bars/lounges at The W, Stingaree, JBar at Solamar and Hard Rock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackerstick

The point is, it isn't EASILY accessible. You can access it, but it's a pain, and quite a journey to do so. The city should have definitely made it a point to express concern over this lack of access. Lack of view corridors or access points along these developments.

Bingo! You'd never know that there is a waterfront on the other side of the convention center and bayfront hotels if you are in the gaslamp or ballpark district. Sure, the new pedestrian bridge will make it easier, but as it is now, you have to go all the way to 5th Ave to cross Harbor Drive, then you still have to climb atop (or go around) the cc to make it to the water. Couldn't they have built the cc partially underground or built it perpendicular to the shoreline?

I can't wait for the day convention centers become obsolete, so they can blow that thing up and create easy access between downtown and the bay once again. :yes:

Great shots.

Honestly, the density of the skyline at this point is much more impressive than other cities with taller but fewer buildings spaced apart. I've seen it referred to here as the "toothpicks in the sand" phenomenon (think Atlanta, Cleveland, etc.) Despite this being a skyscraper forum, I think most here agree vitality at street level is much more important to a thriving city than is a CBD of tall buildings that empty out each night. One need only look to Paris or London (sans La Defense and Canary Wharf, respectively) in taking this argument to the logical extreme. Now I'm not comparing SD to these cities, but my point is I wouldn't worry about your "stubby" skyline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4064218)

I need a little help on a photo essay for my urban studies class...I need to "take" pictures that answer this question: When and where should the state (government) step in and have a say in urban design and/or architecture?

Obviously a couple of pictures of suburbia, then maybe of the waterfront, any other ideas? I need enough to write three pages on the subject lol.

\

Any other ideas? lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4069118)

The only easily accessible rooftop downtown with sweeping ocean views I can think of is the ballpark Marriott. Shooting from the outside patio at Bertrand at Mr. A's in Bankers Hill would give her some really nice skyline views and if it is a clear day with the right lighting (time of day) you could make the ocean and bay very visible in the photo from that vantage point.

It will be hard to get shots with high rises all over the place and the water all in one. If she only needs a big balcony and not an entire roof top she could pay the owners of the penthouses of some of the new condo buildings to allow her to shoot for a couple of hours from their balcony... If I think of anything else I will send you a pm. :cheers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4069526)

Tear it down sounds good to me. :) This is so sad that downtown does not embrace the water. The majority of view corridors have been closed to accommodate buildings with inappropriate mass.

You could open one corridor, the space between the Hyatt and Marriott. There is a ballroom there, that could be torn down and large open space could be created to get people to see the water and access it. Other than that we will have to wait 20 years until the convention center is a white elephant and will be torn down.

I am not too excited about the proposal to build an addition to it right behind the current one. That is just a horrible idea. And who is the cheerleader on that one... The Great Visionary... Jerry Sanders...

^ While we wait for the convention center to die (doubtful) at least it'd be nice to see something done to the embarcadero. Might as well embrace as much waterfront that we have left.

Those pics on the previous page were awesome!

I didn't see anyone else post this, but in what should be a surprise to no one, the Pep Boys building has lost the Rite-Aid signs and now has a new "Available" banner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PadreHomer (Post 4074233)

I didn't see anyone else post this, but in what should be a surprise to no one, the Pep Boys building has lost the Rite-Aid signs and now has a new "Available" banner.

I am still baffled as to why they run that powered light on the West side of that building all night long. Seems like a huge waste. Anyone know what is going on with this site/building?

Quote:

Pressure to Decide Civic Center’s Fate Picks Up Tempo
By NED RANDOLPH - 2/9/2009
San Diego Business Journal Staff

While a plan to redevelop a new downtown Civic Center has lain dormant for six months, it is by no means dead, city officials say.

The project was derailed in August — shortly after the Centre City Development Corp. narrowed the developer proposals to two finalists — when a potential conflict emerged in the main cost-assessment report by real estate services firm Jones Lang LaSalle.

It seems the report’s lead author had accepted a job with CB Richard Ellis, another firm mentioned in the report as a candidate to manage the new complex.

CCDC, a bit punchy from the scandal and resignation of former president Nancy Graham last summer, requested a third-party peer review, funded by Jones Lang LaSalle. That review by the accounting firm of Ernst & Young should be submitted this month, says Jeff Graham, a spokesman for CCDC.

The sole developer vying for the project, Portland, Ore.-based Gerding Edlen Development, is eager to get moving.

“Originally, the City Council promised us they would make a decision last October, but we’ll be lucky if it makes a decision by April,” said Tom Cody, a principal with Gerding Edlen. “The longer they delay, the more money they will waste.”

The city needs a long-term solution to house all 3,100 downtown city workers.

The current complex, which incorporates five public buildings, houses only a third of them. City departments are separated not by programs but by space constraints, which hinders services and worker productivity.

The city spends $13 million annually on office leases, which are set to expire in 2013 and 2014.

Meanwhile, deferred maintenance is estimated at $125 million for seismic upgrades, hazardous materials removal, and fire sprinkler installations on the city-owned buildings.

“It’s a 50-year solution at a minimum,” said Graham. “We would expect a new state-of-the-art building to last 100 years and beyond.”

New Thinking

By redesigning the area, the city could house all workers on-site, using 30 percent less space, according to Gerding Edlen.

The new design would improve access and government transparency, align workspace to departmental needs and create a catalyst for economic development along C Street. All of this would cost less than the city currently spends, says the developer.

“Ultimately, what the city needs to understand is that it’s going to cost us more money in the end to do nothing,” said Jean Walcher, a spokeswoman for Gerding Edlen. “It will ultimately save the city money, create 13,000 jobs and create economic development that’s so critical to the city’s future.”

After a national search, Gerding Edlen emerged as one of two finalists on the project along with Hines Interests, the Houston-based developer that built Petco Park.

“Both submitted detailed proposals with financial designs, and we fully vetted both of those,” said Graham. “According to Jones Lang LaSalle’s analysis, Gerding Edlen saved the city the most amount of money. “Hines knew that was the most overriding condition. They decided to withdraw.”

City analysis said that Gerding Edlen’s proposal would cost $628 million to $650 million over 50 years, compared to Hines’ $784 million proposal.

Iconic Government Building

Gerding Edlen’s proposal features an iconic tower that resembles a sail.

“The sail was inspired by what we think is the ethos of San Diego — the form related to the natural elements that define climate and culture here: sunshine, the wind and ocean breezes,” said Braulio Baptista, the lead architect from Portland, Ore.-based Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects. “Downtown is full of dumb boxes.”

Plans call for ground floor retail in all buildings along with some housing and perhaps a hotel. Gerding Edlen would act as the city’s private partner and finance the project through the nonprofit National Development Council, which provides tax-exempt financing for such efforts.

The city’s new favorable investment grade bond rating also lowers cost estimates from the original proposal, said Cody.

“And in times of economic turmoil, there is typically a flight of investors to treasury and municipal debt because it’s seen as being secure,” he said.

The city, which would maintain ownership of the land, would lease the property from Gerding Edlen on a 33-year term.

Cody downplayed the recession’s impact, saying that it will be years before construction begins on the private components such as retail, residential and a hotel.

City Hall would rise first as the anchor tenant at a construction cost of $527 million for a 1 million-square-foot building. The second and third phases, whose construction costs are estimated at $679 million, would include residential and office towers, a fire station and a refurbished theater. It may also include a hotel. Gerding Edlen, which would finance the construction, would manage the property and recoup much of the costs through private leases.

“The private development would not come online until 2015,” he said. “You’re going to have the most progressive sustainable building on the West Coast, and the biggest anchor tenant in downtown San Diego as a draw.”

As opposed to converting the 1963-era Golden Hall to office space, which would cost $1.05 billion, Gerding Edlen’s proposal would save more than $400 million over the next 50 years, Cody said.

“The city is sitting on a time bomb because it has no control over the way it spends money. The current economic climate only amplifies and underscores the need to solve this time bomb,” Cody said. “There’s a huge latent defect liability in these buildings: asbestos, seismic. It’s not only an embarrassment but a liability.”

Lengthy Timeline

Despite overtures to complete the project by the time the city leases expire, the city will likely require short-term negotiations.

The project would need two years of predevelopment, including feedback from city officials, city employees and residents. Construction would take three years.

Graham said he’s not expecting any earth-shattering revelations from Ernst & Young. The cost estimates may be off simply from the recession.

“I think we all know that in September ’08 the climate changed dramatically and continued downward since then,” said Graham.

The final draft is expected to be completed by the end of the month. The City Council could take it up in March.

Graham also believes the project can go forward in the recession.

“The revenue shortfalls will affect the city with whatever course of action we take, even if we continue to lease space and renew the leases,” Graham said. “All cost the city millions of dollars a year to operate, including operating and maintenance costs of city-owned buildings on the complex.”

http://www.sdbj.com/industry_article...43&aID2=133973

Seriously...what are these dumbtards thinking? Our airport issue isn't going to be fixed with shiny new terminals. It's the SINGLE RUNWAY geniuses.

Plan would shift airport operations northward
Gates would stay on the south side
By Steve Schmidt
Union-Tribune Staff Writer

2:00 a.m. February 9, 2009
The county Regional Airport Authority is considering building a parking garage near Terminal 2. (Howard Lipin / Union-Tribune) -

The passenger terminal would have trolley, rail and freeway access. Existing terminals would be replaced in the second and third phases. Click for larger image
OVERVIEW

Background: Several local government agencies formed a committee last year to craft a long-term development plan for Lindbergh Field.

What's changing: The panel's recommendation includes relocating most passenger operations to the airport's north side, except boarding gates.

The future: The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, which has the final say on any airfield improvements, is expected to consider the recommendation as soon as next month.

A panel of political heavyweights, chaired by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, is charting the future of Lindbergh Field – and plotting a course to the north.

After nearly a year of meetings, the Ad Hoc Airport Regional Policy Committee is putting the final touches on a proposal to shift most passenger operations to the north side of the airport, along Pacific Highway.

The $5 billion to $12 billion overhaul would include a new passenger terminal, parking lots and a transit hub linked to Interstate 5 and a planned bullet train.

When the project is completed, perhaps by 2030, departing travelers would check in at the new terminal and ride a subway under the runway to boarding gates on the south side.

“The idea is . . . to move as many operations as we can to the north,” said Alan Bersin, a panel member and chairman of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.

The Sanders committee was created in an attempt to forge a consensus among local government agencies regarding development in and around San Diego International Airport, the nation's busiest single-runway commercial airfield.

Bersin noted that broad agreement on the fate of the airport has eluded San Diego for decades.

But now, he said, “for the first time in 50 years, we have a plan that will garner widespread community support and provides for the future of Lindbergh Field.”

In 2006, county voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure to possibly build a commercial airport at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, leaving airport planners with no viable alternative to Lindbergh Field.

The Sanders panel includes county Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts and former state Sen. Steve Peace, along with representatives of the San Diego Unified Port District and the San Diego Association of Governments.

The group is expected to forward its recommendation to SANDAG directors and the San Diego City Council as soon as this week. The Sanders panel will discuss the issue at a public meeting set for 7:15 a.m. Thursday in the airport authority board room, 3225 N. Harbor Drive.

SANDAG and the City Council are expected to vote on the idea and then refer it to the airport authority by next month. The city and SANDAG contemplated suing the authority last year in a dispute related to traffic congestion around the airport.

The authority has the final say on airport development. The agency is already weighing $900 million to $1 billion in short-term improvements, including adding boarding gates and building a five-level, 5,000-space parking garage near Terminal 2.

The Sanders panel did not take a position on the garage, which critics say would worsen traffic on Harbor Drive.

Lindbergh Field officials expect annual passenger counts to reach 22 million by 2020. The airport handled 18.1 million passengers last year.

Sanders hopes San Diegans will embrace the go-north concept. He said he believes it will benefit neighborhoods near the airport while improving transportation in the region.

Sanders said shifting most passenger services to Pacific Highway will ease congestion on Harbor Drive and other streets, and directly tie Lindbergh Field to freeway, rail and trolley systems.

“We're trying to make it easier for people to get in and out of the airport,” the mayor said. “I see it as a land-use template for the future.”

Ramona Finnila, a member of the airport authority's board, said she doesn't feel obliged to back the idea even if it represents a political consensus.

Finnila said improvements at the airport must be based first on “what's best for aviation and what's best for the aviation community.”

The Sanders panel, working with highly paid consultants largely funded by the airport authority, believes the transformation of Lindbergh Field should unfold in phases.

Phase one: Relocate Hertz and other major rental-car companies to the north side of the airport from Harbor Drive. The companies would be placed under one roof, similar to the rental-car centers found at many airports.

Build a transit hub along Pacific Highway, with bus, San Diego Trolley and Amtrak stops. It also could house a bullet-train station. California voters last fall approved a ballot measure to spur the creation of a statewide high-speed rail system. The train is expected to eventually include stops in San Diego.

Develop the first stage of a passenger terminal on the north side, with check-in counters and other services. A fleet of buses, running on airport property, would shuttle travelers to the south-side boarding gates.

Passenger services still would be available on the south side.

Projected phase one cost, figuring in inflation: $615 million to $830 million. Possible completion date: 2015.

Phase two: Expand the north-side passenger terminal to include a subway linked to boarding gates on the south.

Build flyover ramps linking the terminal and other north-side facilities to Interstate 5.

Add gates to the existing Terminal 2 concourse near Harbor Drive and rebuild Terminal 1, Lindbergh's oldest and most cramped concourse. The subway would stop at both terminals.

Retain some parking and passenger services on the south side while expanding services and adding parking on the north.

Projected phase two cost: $2.1 billion to $3.9 billion. Possible completion date: 2020.

Phase three: Shift all passenger services to the north side except boarding operations. Expand the north-side terminal and build a multilevel parking structure parallel to I-5.

Airport planners say the garage would be about the same height as the elevated freeway, or possibly shorter.

Projected phase three cost: $2.3 billion to $7.6 billion. Possible completion date: 2030.

Houston-based Jacobs Consultancy, which so far has earned $3.2 million to analyze Lindbergh Field for the Sanders group, said many of the improvements could be funded through landing fees and other airport revenues.

Other likely sources of money include federal grants, fees paid by rental-car companies and city redevelopment funds.

Parking lots, rental-car shops and other airport-related businesses fill most of the north-side land targeted for change.

Sanders and Peace favor moving all passenger services to the north, including gates.

But officials at the nearby Marine Corps Recruit Depot have told the Sanders group they are unwilling to part with the 27 acres needed to relocate the gates.

Sanders and Peace said the panel recommendation, as currently crafted, leaves open the possibility of gates on the north side if the military changes its position.

Peace called the transit hub the centerpiece of the group recommendation. He said tying together mass transit will make the region more economically competitive.

Robert Watkins, a member of the airport authority, said the improvements could serve as a showcase public works project for the economically ailing region.

“I see it as a good time to do something like this,” Watkins said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PadreHomer (Post 4074233)

I didn't see anyone else post this, but in what should be a surprise to no one, the Pep Boys building has lost the Rite-Aid signs and now has a new "Available" banner.

Rite-Aid cancelled all U.S. expansion plans after their stock plummeted 92% year-year. They purchased Eckerd Drug Store and Brooks in 2007 and haven't been able to overcome the debt load. I don't even imagine in one year they will still be around.

In regards to the airport, if what I know SD development trends this will most definitely end up being poorly planned, under-designed, over budget, and well behind schedule. I really feel like this is a step in the wrong direction.

Are all these plans moving forward with no real commitment from the Navy to give up the land in the future?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4078232)

We all need to write the Mayor, city council, and airport board.

My issue with the airport is that even in the best of scenarios, it is a small single runway airport with limited capacity for fleights and air cargo capabilities. And, it is in a prime location much better suited for commercial and residential use on a marvelous scale. It is absolutely the WORST location on a land value v. land use scale.

So perhaps new terminals will make it shiny, and flipping access to the north side will make it more streamline. It will still not be able to bring in air cargo of any significant amount which LA needs us to assist with, and it still will be lacking only 10 years after if it completed.

SHORT SIGHTED to say the LEAST

What about having a truly international airport down on the border?

Why can't they turn Montgomery Field into a more cargo oriented airport?

What I don't understand is why San Diego is cutting off it's own income with this inadequate airport. Tourism is SD's 2 largest industry so why can't we land a direct flight from Singapore, Tokyo, Busan and Beijing??

Lindbergh will continue to fall behind other airports as more carriers continue to invest in the larger, more efficient wide bodied planes. These planes can't land at Lindbergh, and it shows a lack of foresight on behalf of the Mayor's office, city council, and airport board.

Viewing Page 219 of 796