Thank you.

PS, I registered with your site.

Your welcome and thank you for registering! BTW, please sign my petition - stop demolition for parking lots: http://www.change.org/petitions/city...r-parking-lots

Signed

Now that's worthwhile. :tup:

Signed.

Bittersweet.

I don't understand why towers aren't more generally accepted outside of downtown for residential.

Many of the types of housing you see being built in Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, and elsewhere is that 3-4 story townhome stuff with a tangle of little driveways so everyone can have their own garage. These places are so juxtaposed, that they offer terrible views, pathetic balconies, and hideous architecture. They also take up a shit ton of land.

Why don't more developers build a nice 10-15 story building, with a basement garage, and a nice open space/pool/grass on top of the podium. This affords better views, inherently better architecture, takes less land, and would create more walkable neighborhoods.

Does anyone know why this isn't being done? Is it that much more expensive, even with land saved?

It all comes down to the zoning. San Diego's zoning is designed to placate NIMBYs who want to limit density and development, so outside of Downtown and University City (am I missing any other neighborhoods?), its illegal to build towers. I can't say that I have a huge problem with restricting 10 story buildings in places like Kearny Mesa, but a lot of this zoning is designed to make 4-6 story construction illegal. San Diego's NIMBYs have decided that its much better for people to live and commute from Santee, Escondido, or Temecula than to let San Diego grow into a denser city. This must change, and the restrictions on urban construction must be heavily reformed.

Good points. That said, if they can build 10 story office in Kearny Mesa why not 10 story residential?

It would make a lot more sense to have these type of buildings (see below...I know this is an old building) scattered around , which actually leave room retail, etc, than the full block 5 story stucco boxes we are being accustomed to.

I guess what I'm also trying to get at is that people have this perception that living in a 4 floor stucco box is less dense or crowded than an evil high-rise. Fact is that a high-rise affords better views, less people per floor, and more open space at street level.

This example is in LA, but looks like it is near Balboa Park or similar environs.

http://csmedia.mris.com/platinum/get...OT=50045650620

You know I crack up sometimes by the comments here. Developers build what the market demands. It's that simple. My company is betting on urban, infill projects. Not because of any government or planners decree, but because we feel that the market is there for these types of projects. The environmental and lifestyle benefits are great and we wouldn't do these kinds of projects if we didn't feel they contributed to our community, but if there weren't a market for them, we wouldn't be developing at all. Zoning plays a role, as do the NYMBYs of course, but it's the market that rules.

What type of buildings is your company interested in building?

Drives me nuts that many builders think that everyone wants some type of a Spanish or Tuscan ranch house, especially when it comes to condo projects.

"Spanish or Tuscan ranch" may not be for you, and it's certainly not for me. But it's not for you or I to dictate taste or lifestyle to others. If people didn't want that type of housing, then no one would have bought them.

So the trick is not to demonize those who have chosen a lifestyle you don't approve of and blame them for all of society's ills. The trick is to create a lifestyle that, while respecting both the environment and the community, is so attractive that it becomes a viable alternative for most and an eager first-choice for many.

That is the type of building my company is "interested in building," and has.

It is incorrect of you to suggest that anyone is demonizing or dictating other's housing choices. Ironically though, these builders who build what they believe the masses want, in a way, dictate what many people will buy, as new construction is very limited in this market.

Oh really? Have you not read some of the posts here and elsewhere on this forum? And here's a newsflash, builders who don't build what people want, go out of business real fast.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. If you think supplying a product that no one wants is a sustainable business model, well, you knock yourself out... :cheers:

Someone is being presumptive (and rude). :chillpill:

You know, you can make a point without sounding like a pretentious asshole. :rolleyes:

XtremeDave has a point because the market certainly doesn't dictate EVERYTHING about development or anything for that matter. It operates within the confines of government policy and regulation like zoning in this case.

So no matter how many willing buyers would purchase a condo in a 20 story high rise in somewhere like Old Town (just an example, I'm not saying people actually would), they would need some serious political clout to make it happen because the law as it stands prevents that from happening.

I think he's referring to the height limits throughout parts of San Diego which limit buildings to less than four stories.

This is in fact what most people want, which is why so many are built. A 15 story building in mission valley may be desirable on a place called skyscraperforum, but the average American doesn't want it. The only exception to that is when people want things that are illegal.

We don't need towers to accomplish density. Isn't north Park one of the most densely settled areas of San Diego?

I would argue that because high rise construction is nearly impossible to build here outside of DT, it has actually given us a great urban DT core that is walk-able, transit friendly etc...there is still plenty of room in DT to grow and mature.

If SD over zoned for high rise construction then we would end up like DT Phoenix...vacant lots, land banking for decades.