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)

spoonman Sep 6, 2014 10:49 PM

^ I would argue that the limits have nothing to do with downtown as it is based on distance (2.5 mi) around the runway. I believe that the city simply adopted the 500' limit for "all of downtown" as it coincided with the restrictions.

The restrictions are 500' because the aircraft need at least a 200' buffer from the circling minimums that are required within 2.5 miles from the airport (however I'm not sure if this distance & minimum is specific to SD). Anyhow, I would think that anything outside this radius could be taller. How much I'm not sure...maybe it would step-up as distance increased.

I know that the height limit is a touchy subject, but now would be the time for the city to increase the limit in north Barrio Logan, if it is possible, given the recent BL referendum. I know this is highly unlikely, but this would be the time. Also, the city could be amenable to this if a new stadium is built in the area.

SDfan Sep 6, 2014 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6719791)
^ I would argue that the limits have nothing to do with downtown as it is based on distance (2.5 mi) around the runway. I believe that the city simply adopted the 500' limit for "all of downtown" as it coincided with the restrictions.

The restrictions are 500' because the aircraft need at least a 200' buffer from the circling minimums that are required within 2.5 miles from the airport (however I'm not sure if this distance & minimum is specific to SD). Anyhow, I would think that anything outside this radius could be taller. How much I'm not sure...maybe it would step-up as distance increased.

I know that the height limit is a touchy subject, but now would be the time for the city to increase the limit in north Barrio Logan, if it is possible, given the recent BL referendum. I know this is highly unlikely, but this would be the time. Also, the city could be amenable to this if a new stadium is built in the area.

I understand your point, and I would support it. I just don't think it's likely to ever come about. San Diego doesn't have the political will to deal with community opposition towards new development in established neighborhoods (which given the lack of greenfield development, pretty much means the entire city). Unless their is significant support from within a community to build (like in the East Village, Little Italy, and Mission Valley) there won't be a push to raise densities and height limits.

Barrio Logan was having a hard time accepting the minimal density increases that were established in their now defunct community plan. Asking them to increase height limits upwards and over 500' would be a stretch when debates over 5 and 6 story structures pulled NIMBY's out of the woodwork.

I only see San Diego getting an actual skyscraper if one of these three scenarios played out:

1. The city heavily lobbies the FAA to ease restrictions

This is unlikely given the lack of leadership on development issues in the city, and the FAA just approved new development guidelines that further restricted new construction around the airport - with the city's full consent. Not likely.

2. Lindbergh moves

I've gone over this before, I won't again, but it is never going to happen. San Diego will keep SAN forever.

3. San Diego establishes a new urban center

This would have to be decades from now, be approved by a variety of entities, and require a lot of political will. The city does have other urban centers, but they aren't going to build towers at the height and scale of downtown - thank community opposition for that.

San Diego will remain a 500' or less for decades to come.

spoonman Sep 7, 2014 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6719826)
I understand your point, and I would support it. I just don't think it's likely to ever come about. San Diego doesn't have the political will to deal with community opposition towards new development in established neighborhoods (which given the lack of greenfield development, pretty much means the entire city). Unless their is significant support from within a community to build (like in the East Village, Little Italy, and Mission Valley) there won't be a push to raise densities and height limits.

Barrio Logan was having a hard time accepting the minimal density increases that were established in their now defunct community plan. Asking them to increase height limits upwards and over 500' would be a stretch when debates over 5 and 6 story structures pulled NIMBY's out of the woodwork.

I only see San Diego getting an actual skyscraper if one of these three scenarios played out:

1. The city heavily lobbies the FAA to ease restrictions

This is unlikely given the lack of leadership on development issues in the city, and the FAA just approved new development guidelines that further restricted new construction around the airport - with the city's full consent. Not likely.

2. Lindbergh moves

I've gone over this before, I won't again, but it is never going to happen. San Diego will keep SAN forever.

3. San Diego establishes a new urban center

This would have to be decades from now, be approved by a variety of entities, and require a lot of political will. The city does have other urban centers, but they aren't going to build towers at the height and scale of downtown - thank community opposition for that.

San Diego will remain a 500' or less for decades to come.

I agree. It would just be so simple if we could take a couple blocks for downtwn's use, which could support higher heights. Total longshot I know.

spoonman Sep 7, 2014 4:29 PM

Manchester and Mickelson going in on a golf project. Wonder what this will entail. (Credit to SDDT)

http://www.sddt.com/Hospitality/arti...s#.VAwW3t7n_IU

Manchester, Mickelson to unveil Fairbanks Ranch plans
By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN
Friday, September 5, 2014
A closed-door meeting has been set for 4 p.m. Tuesday at Fairbanks Ranch Country Club to hear U-T San Diego and Grand Del Mar owner Douglas Manchester and golfer Phil Mickelson discuss plans for the property that served as the site of the 1984 Olympic equestrian events.

The partnership known as the Manchester & Mickelson Group (MMG) will present the plan to the country club's members/owners, who are expected to vote on the proposal this month. MMG is reportedly conducting due diligence work in preparation for buying the 373-acre property.

"Please reassure the members we will all end up with one of the best golf and family country clubs in San Diego," said Steve Loy, Mickelson's business partner, in a statement.

Mike Kendall, Fairbanks Ranch Country Club board president, also sought to reassure membership about the new venture.

"We are excited to have two such prominent community leaders and successful club owners/partners to make the ongoing investment in facilities, programming and execution necessary for FRCC to maintain its position as one of the premier country clubs in San Diego on a long-term, sustainable basis," Kendall wrote last week.

The former Spanish land grant opened as Fairbanks Ranch Country Club at the 1984 Olympics. The ranch got its name when silent film star Douglas Fairbanks and his wife, Mary Pickford, bought what was 3,000 acres in the 1920s.

Long after the property had been sold piecemeal, residential and commercial developer Raymond Watt reconstituted some of the land from eight separate entities. He cobbled together funding from local businessmen who became founding members of the country club.

Ted Robinson Jr. was hired to develop the golf course, which began construction in 1980. Watt developed more than 300 homes around the course.

dtell04 Sep 7, 2014 6:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6719826)
I understand your point, and I would support it. I just don't think it's likely to ever come about. San Diego doesn't have the political will to deal with community opposition towards new development in established neighborhoods (which given the lack of greenfield development, pretty much means the entire city). Unless their is significant support from within a community to build (like in the East Village, Little Italy, and Mission Valley) there won't be a push to raise densities and height limits.

Barrio Logan was having a hard time accepting the minimal density increases that were established in their now defunct community plan. Asking them to increase height limits upwards and over 500' would be a stretch when debates over 5 and 6 story structures pulled NIMBY's out of the woodwork.

I only see San Diego getting an actual skyscraper if one of these three scenarios played out:

1. The city heavily lobbies the FAA to ease restrictions

This is unlikely given the lack of leadership on development issues in the city, and the FAA just approved new development guidelines that further restricted new construction around the airport - with the city's full consent. Not likely.

2. Lindbergh moves

I've gone over this before, I won't again, but it is never going to happen. San Diego will keep SAN forever.

3. San Diego establishes a new urban center

This would have to be decades from now, be approved by a variety of entities, and require a lot of political will. The city does have other urban centers, but they aren't going to build towers at the height and scale of downtown - thank community opposition for that.

San Diego will remain a 500' or less for decades to come.

I spoke with an urban planner that works for the Navy. The air station on Coronado also limits the building heights. Add that to the list.....kicking the Navy off Coronado. HA

aerogt3 Sep 8, 2014 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6716158)
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:

The theather requires an inordinate amount of money given it's potential uses and location. Spending tens of millions just so a handful of people can appreciate 50 feet of nice looking sidewalk frontage is not worth it.

Generally, I would like to see preservationists put their money where their mouth is. They always want to save things, but always with tax or developers money. If these structures are so valuable, why don't they raise the money and buy them?

mello Sep 8, 2014 6:57 PM

Just checked out the renderings for towers that will be going up in Century City and I'm wondering why the Chula Vista bayfront which is "the last opportunity of its kind on the CA coast" to build vertically is getting such crap proposals from cut rate architects.... I understand Century City is an established place in the heart of West LA and has produced tons of condos selling at $600 per sq foot and up but it isn't right on the water and the potential views from CV bayfront are much better.

Lipani Sep 8, 2014 6:57 PM

aerogt3: The same could be said on any number of things. A new stadium for the Chargers wouldn't benefit taxpayers, but the proponents of that project are demanding that we all pay for it.

Northparkwizard Sep 9, 2014 7:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipani (Post 6721547)
aerogt3: The same could be said on any number of things. A new stadium for the Chargers wouldn't benefit taxpayers, but the proponents of that project are demanding that we all pay for it.

Why would't selling prime "antiquated" city-owned real estate (Jack Murphy) to the highest bidder and having ownership in a NFL team (land equity that we already own) not benefit taxpayers? We own the bus depot and the stadium. We're losing far more cash now than we ever would with a new stadium. In downtown or Mission Valley.

The Chargers don't own anything. We, the public own all the property. Both make less than 0.

I'm fairly certain the deal is almost done privately; Spanos', Manchester, JMI, corp sponsors, international holding groups... they don't just meet up for club sandwiches and 9 holes for nothing.

A win-win-win is possible Regardless of what location it is.

Northparkwizard Sep 9, 2014 8:07 AM

Also, i'm not in the business of handing the hat to billionaires while they walk out the door. The city of San Diego agreed to a bad contract, that's on us. Blaming the Chargers for a sweetheart deal is putting the cart before the horse.

Seems the City made some bad business for tax payers, public trust, and business. All around sour grapes at city hall.

nezbn22 Sep 9, 2014 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipani (Post 6721547)
aerogt3: The same could be said on any number of things. A new stadium for the Chargers wouldn't benefit taxpayers, but the proponents of that project are demanding that we all pay for it.

The thing everyone needs to come to grips with is that a stadium isn't going to make money for taxpayers. Parks don't either. And neither do restoration projects of historic structures.

The benefit to taxpayers is not financial. It's civic pride. Plain and simple. From there, opinions will vary widely as to how much that civic pride is worth for each public project. $50 million to restore the old California Theatre is too steep in my book. At a lower price, I'd be all for spending that public cash. Hundreds of millions for a stadium and/or convention center? I don't know. And it's clearly a hot-button issue for most of us. Not all of us like the Chargers, or football (or sports) in general. But there are hundreds of thousands of San Diegans who LOVE the Chargers and would be very proud of a new, fancy stadium.

The price to pay for civic pride is a tough thing to pin down, and we'll all never see eye-to-eye on it. The debating over it can be fun, though ;)

Lipani Sep 9, 2014 4:39 PM

I'm not taking a side on either issue. If there's a proposed project in which there's a consensus that it will help clean up a blighted corridor and results in the demolition of a historic building, then I think it's definitely worth discussing.

As for the Chargers, I don't care if they stay or go. Either way the Q's lifespan is coming to an end and the city could make a fortune from selling the land.

nezbn22 Sep 9, 2014 5:19 PM

Yeah, I'm with you on the sale of that land. Between the Qualcomm site and the Sports Arena site, the city could raise a LOT of money.

Northparkwizard Sep 9, 2014 7:03 PM

There's also the annual people's choice vote now up over at http://www.orchidsandonions.org/

aerogt3 Sep 11, 2014 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezbn22 (Post 6722646)
The thing everyone needs to come to grips with is that a stadium isn't going to make money for taxpayers. Parks don't either. And neither do restoration projects of historic structures.

The benefit to taxpayers is not financial. It's civic pride. Plain and simple. From there, opinions will vary widely as to how much that civic pride is worth for each public project. $50 million to restore the old California Theatre is too steep in my book. At a lower price, I'd be all for spending that public cash. Hundreds of millions for a stadium and/or convention center? I don't know. And it's clearly a hot-button issue for most of us. Not all of us like the Chargers, or football (or sports) in general. But there are hundreds of thousands of San Diegans who LOVE the Chargers and would be very proud of a new, fancy stadium.

The price to pay for civic pride is a tough thing to pin down, and we'll all never see eye-to-eye on it. The debating over it can be fun, though ;)

Renovating a theater just for fun is for civic pride. Parks and stadiums are for civic utility.

SDfan Sep 11, 2014 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6725187)
Renovating a theater just for fun is for civic pride. Parks and stadiums are for civic utility.

:haha:

The only "civic utility" a stadium has is for civic pride and boosterism. Qualcomm has not been a profitable venture, and it's only real benefit has been allowing the Chargers to linger in town for only that much longer. I don't believe a revamped California Theater would provide much in terms of "utility," but at least it wouldn't be a billion-dollar, taxpayer subsidized, white elephant for the wealthy. Neither should be a priority when we have this problem going on:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/09/0...lso-crumbling/

SDfan Sep 11, 2014 11:38 AM

Apparently, a developer has bought three adjacent lots along Friars Road across from Fashion Valley in order to build 200-300 units of new housing. The Mission Valley growth spurt continues.

http://www.sddt.com/RealEstate/artic...s#.VBGJtvldWCs

SDfan Sep 11, 2014 12:15 PM

Downtown Oside is growing up:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...resort-malkin/

Leo the Dog Sep 11, 2014 2:18 PM

Not sure if this has been talked about, but does anyone know what's going in at the old Staples/CVS shopping plaza at Ingraham/Garnet in PB?

It's been closed for months and now demo has begun.

aerogt3 Sep 11, 2014 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6725205)
The only "civic utility" a stadium has is for civic pride and boosterism. Qualcomm has not been a profitable venture, and it's only real benefit has been allowing the Chargers to linger in town for only that much longer. I don't believe a revamped California Theater would provide much in terms of "utility," but at least it wouldn't be a billion-dollar, taxpayer subsidized, white elephant for the wealthy. Neither should be a priority when we have this problem going on:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/09/0...lso-crumbling/

A revamped california theater provides virtually zero utility, other than the property value boost to its neighbors and the warm feelings preservationists get from their slacktivism. Look at Petco park and tell me it's construction hasn't served the public good.

I would rather fund 1/16th of the chargers stadium or throw $50m in city parks than fix one theater than no one would use and hardly anyone would even walk by.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.