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)

keg92101 Apr 11, 2007 2:25 AM

Creativity for Vacant Storefront Space
 
Check out the link below. NYC landlords certainly get the most out of their vacant storefronts. Our SD landlords ought to take note of this strategy. It would certainly be more interesting than a vacant space with a "Burnham Real Estate" sign!

http://www.blogchelsea.com/arts-cult...-times-square/

bmfarley Apr 11, 2007 3:30 AM

Almost completed.... the temporary lot at Imperial and 14th.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...w/DSCF2114.jpg

Derek Apr 11, 2007 3:35 AM

its amazing how fast these new parking lots go in...:no:

Derek Apr 11, 2007 4:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2755862)
I've seen her before from youtube. She's the epitome of sexiness!!!! However, I find this even more sexy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5ZpGxv32_I

i just noticed this...i like:tup:

HurricaneHugo Apr 11, 2007 7:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2755593)
i remember when i first joined there was only like 4 of us...now theres about 8...its nice:)

Pfft, been here since 02.

Im still waiting for Charles' avatar that was due fall 02....

spoonman Apr 11, 2007 7:39 AM

^and we're hoping the cat comes back...lol

Derek Apr 11, 2007 1:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 2758663)
Pfft, been here since 02.

Im still waiting for Charles' avatar that was due fall 02....

oh yeah...what ever happened to Hatfield?

Urban Sky Apr 12, 2007 6:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2755593)
i remember when i first joined there was only like 4 of us...now theres about 8...its nice:)






(talk about a LONG Pads game...a win is a win though;))

YEAH, what are you talking about 4 people? ive been here since 03...and there were more than that even then.

dl3000 Apr 12, 2007 6:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2755873)
^I watched the video, and SD is depicted as parked cars on the freeway and palm trees...lol

Actually thats the piece of the tracks near Bay Park off the 5, you can see the Mission Bay Hilton in the background.

bmfarley Apr 12, 2007 7:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 2761512)
Actually thats the piece of the tracks near Bay Park off the 5, you can see the Mission Bay Hilton in the background.

Yeah... and I5 is probably accurately depicted as having a bunch of cars stuck in traffic.... as in a jam... in the future.

I know people here are spoiled.... with hardly much traffic congestion. But what's depicted on I5 near Mission Bay is very much like a lot of LA and SF area freeways today. Saturdays too.

spoonman Apr 12, 2007 7:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2761557)
Yeah... and I5 is probably accurately depicted as having a bunch of cars stuck in traffic.... as in a jam... in the future.

I know people here are spoiled.... with hardly much traffic congestion. But what's depicted on I5 near Mission Bay is very much like a lot of LA and SF area freeways today. Saturdays too.

I live in Fullerton in northern Orange County and I have to say that traffic is about the same. San Diego however, is fortunate to have a better designed freeway system. Not only are the connectors better, but there is a freeway for almost any direction you would want to go. Much of the freeway congestion around here is due to a few choke points that are a result of poor design and a poorly designed "web".

SDCAL Apr 12, 2007 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 2753575)
Lindberg is the busiest single runway in the nation. And probably ranks up there in the world rankings. Why? Because we are operating at capacity. This means that we could afford to have another runway. Unfortunately, we don't have the space. It IS time to move the airport. Once the airports growth is no longer stunted, I think we will see some really positive changes in the way the airport operates and the business it brings to the city. Really, it's a positive thing no matter how you look at it. I'm not understanding why people dont get it!! :shrug:

Lindbergh is the busiest single runway in the nation and the 2nd busiest in the world. The busiest single run-way is London's Gatwick, which doesn't need to worry about large international-bound planes because Heathrow handles those. Even so, there are plans to expand Gatwick.

Trvlr Apr 12, 2007 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2763076)
Lindbergh is the busiest single runway in the nation and the 2nd busiest in the world. The busiest single run-way is London's Gatwick, which doesn't need to worry about large international-bound planes because Heathrow handles those. Even so, there are plans to expand Gatwick.

Quite true, although Gatwick handles its fair share of intercontinental traffic.

The airport also doesn't have to worry about large planes because A) physically, it is a larger facility (1000+ acres to Lindbergs ~500 acres) and B) the runway is longer and less obstructed, meaning such aircraft do not incur operational restrictions that limit their range and/or capacity.

Aaron G.

SDCAL Apr 12, 2007 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trvlr (Post 2756065)
Hi everyone,

I just registered here and I've decided to post for the first time. I grew up in San Diego, but currently live in Chicago, where I go to school and will be working for the next few years.

My background is primarily in aviation, but I also have a fairly solid interest in wider transportation issues, as well as urban planning.

If you guys have any questions about (commercial) aviation in San Diego, I can probably answer them. As far as the airport goes, I'm pessimistic for the time being, although I think push will come to shove over the next decade, when the effect of increased traffic will translate into more acute delays and road congestion. In the meantime, the best we can expect is an improvement of terminal facilities, including an expansion of the newest part of Terminal 2. However, SAN has 41 gates now, and will max out--for good--at around 60.

In terms of international air service, SAN has been a victim of its size. Big aircraft such as the 747 and 777 simply can't take off from the airport without taking a weight penalty. I am fairly sure that even British Airways' nonstop 777 service to London had to take a cargo penalty which rendered the flight unprofitable. Lately, there has been very serious talk about Philippine Airlines flying to Manila, via Vancouver. However, I believe Canada and the Philippines need to expand their bilateral air service agreement to allow for more flights in and out of Canada before the airline can start service. If this happens, I think we could see Philippine at SAN within the year. Other than that, I think we will need to wait for Boeing's newest airplane, the medium-sized 787, to enter service with multiple airline before we can expect to be connected the likes of Tokyo and London.

The article by UCSD Steve Erie that someone posted earlier in the thread sums up the central problem with airport planning and, in my opinion, city planning in San Diego. There's a very powerful contingent of people who thinks that if we stop growth altogether, we can regain the sleepy Navy town identity we had back in the 60s and 70s. The reality is that this will never happen--there are simply too many people here. Paradoxically, this policy, embodied by people such as Christine Kehoe (who is purely politically motivated--I actually don't mind Donna Frye if she acts as a development watchdog as opposed to an opponent altogether), will probably contribute to a decline in our quality of life, as corporate flight from the city causes our tax base to decline.

In the meantime, I am very happy with what is going on downtown. I went to Bondi and a few other places when I was back here over spring break, and for the first time I felt that the Gaslamp had moved beyond a conventioneer's playground. I agree, however, that there needs to be a better mix of office & residential development. Indeed, I've always wondered why firms such as Bosa and Irvine don't work together to attract high-value tenants; I'm sure there are at least a few companies out there that would love to house their employees within a 5-minute walk to work.

Thanks everyone,
Trvlr

Welcome and interesting post about Philippines Air, I had not heard about that. When you say there is talk of a SAN-Manila flight via Vancouver, do you mean the plane would fly (Manila-bound) Vancouver-SAN-Manila or SAN-Vancouver-Manila? I am assuming Vancouver-SAN-Manila since Manila is south of SD and Vancouver North?

SDCAL Apr 12, 2007 10:28 PM

I would like to see the city officials who have the power to change the height limits answer these questions:

(1) I live downtown and very often, including this past weekend, see a blimp (sometimes more than one!) sleuthing overhead, well over 500ft. If downtown airspace is really dangerous for objects (be they buildings or anything else) over 500 ft, I don't think they would let a blimp fly over regularly??!?

(2) I live near the ballpark and never, ever see or hear a commercial airplane flying overhead (only the occasional helicopter). Why can’t >500ft buildings be built in the east part of downtown which is not near the airport or any flight-path??

Unfortunately, posting on this site is preaching to the choir. We need to start emailing the city council or whoever is in charge of this and ask for answers

Urban Sky Apr 12, 2007 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2763156)
I would like to see the city officials who have the power to change the height limits answer these questions:

(1) I live downtown and very often, including this past weekend, see a blimp (sometimes more than one!) sleuthing overhead, well over 500ft. If downtown airspace is really dangerous for objects (be they buildings or anything else) over 500 ft, I don't think they would let a blimp fly over regularly??!?

(2) I live near the ballpark and never, ever see or hear a commercial airplane flying overhead (only the occasional helicopter). Why can’t >500ft buildings be built in the east part of downtown which is not near the airport or any flight-path??

Unfortunately, posting on this site is preaching to the choir. We need to start emailing the city council or whoever is in charge of this and ask for answers


yes, it is preaching to the choir :yes: :haha: I have the same questions myself and there is no really good reasons that I know of. I've seen several aborted landings when I lived in Bankers Hill (which is pretty much under the flight path) and NONE of them actually TURNED towards downtown during the sequence of events that followed. Even during fog they still go straight....AND when the fog is thick enough, the land in the opposite direction. So I don't get it either.

Derek Apr 13, 2007 1:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2763156)
I would like to see the city officials who have the power to change the height limits answer these questions:

(1) I live downtown and very often, including this past weekend, see a blimp (sometimes more than one!) sleuthing overhead, well over 500ft. If downtown airspace is really dangerous for objects (be they buildings or anything else) over 500 ft, I don't think they would let a blimp fly over regularly??!?

(2) I live near the ballpark and never, ever see or hear a commercial airplane flying overhead (only the occasional helicopter). Why can’t >500ft buildings be built in the east part of downtown which is not near the airport or any flight-path??

Unfortunately, posting on this site is preaching to the choir. We need to start emailing the city council or whoever is in charge of this and ask for answers

thank you for sharing your thoughts, i agree with them:tup:

Derek Apr 13, 2007 1:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2763099)
Welcome and interesting post about Philippines Air, I had not heard about that. When you say there is talk of a SAN-Manila flight via Vancouver, do you mean the plane would fly (Manila-bound) Vancouver-SAN-Manila or SAN-Vancouver-Manila? I am assuming Vancouver-SAN-Manila since Manila is south of SD and Vancouver North?

im not very good at reading air travel...when you say Vancouver-SAN-Manila...does this mean it goes from Vancouver to SD and then Manila? im just curious:)

eburress Apr 13, 2007 2:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2763156)
I would like to see the city officials who have the power to change the height limits answer these questions:

(1) I live downtown and very often, including this past weekend, see a blimp (sometimes more than one!) sleuthing overhead, well over 500ft. If downtown airspace is really dangerous for objects (be they buildings or anything else) over 500 ft, I don't think they would let a blimp fly over regularly??!?

(2) I live near the ballpark and never, ever see or hear a commercial airplane flying overhead (only the occasional helicopter). Why can’t >500ft buildings be built in the east part of downtown which is not near the airport or any flight-path??

Unfortunately, posting on this site is preaching to the choir. We need to start emailing the city council or whoever is in charge of this and ask for answers

About #2, I think the issue is that there is an emergency/backup/secondary flight path that runs directly over downtown, including the East Village. So, while planes never fly over downtown, they technically could. ;)

It doesn't seem like it would require an act of congress to choose another emergency flight path though.

Derek Apr 13, 2007 4:28 AM

^they could just fly over Coronado...why make a nearly 90 degree turn?


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:56 AM.

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