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)

eburress Nov 18, 2016 4:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMBY (Post 7626492)
Vegas? :D We don't even have a light rail line on the drawing boards! When speaking of light rail, we're speaking of a transportation system designed for its local residents.

Please don't mention the Monorail, that only goes between Sahara and Tropicana, as that's strictly for tourists! And, thank you taxi unions, it wasn't allowed to go the Airport or to downtown Las Vegas/Fremont Street.

Vegas was once a refuge for the Desert Tortoise, and that's how slowly things move here in this conservative, Mormon-flavored city/state, at a tortoise pace!

What made it appear that Vegas moved so fast on the potential stadium, is due to Sheldon Adelson, Billionaire Venetian owner, pushing so hard to get it, contributing only $450 million to the $2 billion price tag, and socking the tourists with additional room taxes for the much of the rest of it. If this was going to be such a big money maker for Vegas, and with Adelson's billions, Adelson would have put up the entire amount for it and then slapped his name on the stadium.

I wasn't talking about rail lines, I was talking about cities' abilities to get isht done. I imagine if Vegas wanted light rail, they'd make it happen. For example, they want an NFL team and they're making it happen.

SDfan Nov 18, 2016 6:18 PM

1,650 apartments reviewed last night. Most were approved. I'm a bit disappointed the city isn't encouraging more units that don't include parking (Segal project). Downtown has so many transit options, private car use isn't as big of a deal for these folks.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...116-story.html

superfishy Nov 18, 2016 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7626922)
1,650 apartments reviewed last night. Most were approved. I'm a bit disappointed the city isn't encouraging more units that don't include parking (Segal project). Downtown has so many transit options, private car use isn't as big of a deal for these folks.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...116-story.html

While I'm sure parking free projects are more popular in the huge metro areas of the east coast, frankly, I don't see San Diego as a place that can provide everything in its downtown. I know I would be turned off from renting an apartment which didn't have parking options.

SDfan Nov 18, 2016 9:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superfishy (Post 7627110)
While I'm sure parking free projects are more popular in the huge metro areas of the east coast, frankly, I don't see San Diego as a place that can provide everything in its downtown. I know I would be turned off from renting an apartment which didn't have parking options.

I get we aren't NYC but we can at least start being a bit more proactive and progressive in our transportation planning and parking policies. If we don't encourage development and land use patterns that promote less car use and more walking/biking/ride sharing/transit then it's not going to happen ever.

Personally, if I worked downtown and could get a more affordable rent while also ditching my car (and all the expenses that come with car ownership) I would do it in a second. But right now that's not an option, and it's because people are too short sighted to see solutions that don't involve x-number of parking spaces per unit.

Nerv Nov 19, 2016 1:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7626922)
1,650 apartments reviewed last night. Most were approved. I'm a bit disappointed the city isn't encouraging more units that don't include parking (Segal project). Downtown has so many transit options, private car use isn't as big of a deal for these folks.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...116-story.html


Good news. The more bodies living in the downtown will continue to give it a "lived in" vibe vs those downtowns that are more the "9-5 business" feel.
The best downtowns are those with living breathing people in them vs mostly business.

Crane haters are going to be upset though for many years... :lynchmob:

embora Nov 19, 2016 2:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7627166)
I get we aren't NYC but we can at least start being a bit more proactive and progressive in our transportation planning and parking policies. If we don't encourage development and land use patterns that promote less car use and more walking/biking/ride sharing/transit then it's not going to happen ever.

Personally, if I worked downtown and could get a more affordable rent while also ditching my car (and all the expenses that come with car ownership) I would do it in a second. But right now that's not an option, and it's because people are too short sighted to see solutions that don't involve x-number of parking spaces per unit.

Agreed. It would provide a lower price option for residents, and lessen the cost of building.

I seem to remember the book "The High Cost of Free Parking" mentioning that Chicago and San Francisco are two cities that have maximum parking amounts. So there would be a California precedent for this. For the record: I haven't yet read the book, but read an article or two about it, somewhere along the way.

aerogt3 Nov 21, 2016 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superfishy (Post 7627110)
While I'm sure parking free projects are more popular in the huge metro areas of the east coast, frankly, I don't see San Diego as a place that can provide everything in its downtown. I know I would be turned off from renting an apartment which didn't have parking options.

I don't think that would be the case if the parking were actually priced by the market; i.e., the market rate cost of constructing/owning the space. At the moment, almost every condo buyer is forced by the government into buying a parking space packaged into the cost of their condo. If developers were allowed to build the number of spaces they think they could profitably sell, a lot fewer buyers would opt for them.

In my friend's case, the parking was over 20% of the cost of his unit, but nets him less than 10% of what he rents it for monthly. He would never have purchased the space were it not required by the city and bundled in with the unit.

For sure, if you are forced into paying for a space, and then offered it for free, you will take it. But if the parking is priced in as an option that people actually have to pay for, demand for and construction of underground parking would drop. A perfect example of the government creating a problem that they later ask for more resources to solve.

Aside from that, we should think further ahead. New cars are a few years from full autonomy. We are rapidly leaving the era of every single unit owning a car that they use 5-6 hours a week and then require on site parking for the remaining 160 hours.

a very long weekend Nov 23, 2016 8:24 AM

^ yeah, the idea of requiring parking is nuts, for just the reason you describe. i'm from SF, but over in berkeley, they have a great program where new buildings can decide not to build parking and their residents are excluded from getting street/neighborhood parking passes. basically, it's an 'affordable by design' system that gets developers off the hook for parking (which is super expensive to build!) and forces people living in the buildings either to secure parking elsewhere or to forego it altogether. most forego it, because... oh... they walk/ride to where they're headed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill (Post 7622954)
Not sure if clumping the Bay Area into that is a great idea...the BART extension to San Jose won't be done for several more years, if funded. Caltrain electrification finally passed, but won't go to the new Transbay Terminal for at least 20 more years, BART is crumbling and their new funding will not likely fix most of the problems.

so SJ BART extension is now pretty much funded. electrification is annoyingly tricky, but it won't be "at least 20 more years" into the TBT - we're looking at 10, at the most. that's appalling, but it's a function of a lot of very california-specific things (lawsuits and funding sabotage) and not actual political will.

also, bart isn't "crumbling" but it does need a top up, which, guess what? we just approved.

we need to do a lot more, obviously. but you're not up to date on what's going on here, and you're giving the SD folks bad info.

IMBY Nov 24, 2016 8:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superfishy (Post 7627110)
While I'm sure parking free projects are more popular in the huge metro areas of the east coast, frankly, I don't see San Diego as a place that can provide everything in its downtown. I know I would be turned off from renting an apartment which didn't have parking options.

One of the omissions in urban development is provisions for groceries, and not all of us can afford to shop at Whole Foods. I've only stepped inside a Whole Foods, once, years ago, while visiting Portland. I no more than traversed 20 feet into the store, saw the shocking prices for an apple and a banana, and exited. Completely beyond my income range!

When I bought into the urban loft lifestyle in Minneapolis, still in its infancy, in the mid to late 1980's, I still needed a car to drive 3-4 miles to a large grocery store as, back then, no grocery stores anywhere. :shrug: And, following developments on this forum, I see it wasn't until the 2000's that a Whole Foods store arrived, and a Target store, despite the addition of 1000's of new units.

I believe that urban developers think that these new urban dwellers are going to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner out at restaurants, so why the great need for grocery stores.

Las Vegas is way behind the rest of the country in redeveloping their downtown area with only 4 high rises built during the boom times, and none added since then. And, where's the grocery stores? And particularly important to me as I love to cook!

So if I were to buy a unit in downtown San Diego, being car-less how far would I have to walk to a regular grocery store, I repeat regular grocery store? Or how far on the light rail would I have to travel to?

When I was visiting Dallas in winter 2009, I was surprised to see a grocery store in downtown Dallas, and certainly not a fancy looking store, and I talked with the owner and he said that the city put a moratorium on any new office building conversions to lofts until a grocery store appeared.

HurricaneHugo Nov 24, 2016 10:07 AM

There's Grocery Outlet, Albertson's, CVS, and Ralph's, all on Market

IMBY Nov 24, 2016 11:37 AM

That's great, so I wouldn't need a take the rail line out of the city to buy groceries, and yes, I do know you can order groceries on line today, which wasn't available when I had my loft in Minneapolis.

Like I said, previously, I love too cook, the more challenging the recipe the better. Never been keen on eating at restaurants.

mello Nov 25, 2016 8:17 PM

Grocery Stores: There is also a Jimbo's at Horton Plaza, the prices are a bit high probably less than Whole Foods though. Also there has been a small grocery store called Hanson's (They have a location in San Clemente I've been to) planned for the Ariel Suites building for over a year but it hasn't moved forward yet for some reason. I thought I remembered another neighborhoody type store going in around 8th or 9th and Market not sure if it ever opened I haven't noticed it lately.

So I would say compared to most US downtown's SD is pretty well covered with grocery store options.

OneRinconHill Nov 26, 2016 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a very long weekend (Post 7631083)
^ yeah, the idea of requiring parking is nuts, for just the reason you describe. i'm from SF, but over in berkeley, they have a great program where new buildings can decide not to build parking and their residents are excluded from getting street/neighborhood parking passes. basically, it's an 'affordable by design' system that gets developers off the hook for parking (which is super expensive to build!) and forces people living in the buildings either to secure parking elsewhere or to forego it altogether. most forego it, because... oh... they walk/ride to where they're headed.



so SJ BART extension is now pretty much funded. electrification is annoyingly tricky, but it won't be "at least 20 more years" into the TBT - we're looking at 10, at the most. that's appalling, but it's a function of a lot of very california-specific things (lawsuits and funding sabotage) and not actual political will.

also, bart isn't "crumbling" but it does need a top up, which, guess what? we just approved.

we need to do a lot more, obviously. but you're not up to date on what's going on here, and you're giving the SD folks bad info.

I still live in SF half time, I think I know what's going on, especially being from here. Berryessa isn't going to open at its current rate until 2020 (not 2018 in predictions), and past that, they haven't even estimated the downtown tunnel expansion, and they're considering lopping off the Santa Clara section.

Sounds like how BART has run for about 40+ years now...

tyleraf Nov 29, 2016 8:17 PM

More density coming to Uptown, especially Hillcrest.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...128-story.html

JerellO Nov 30, 2016 3:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 7636717)
More density coming to Uptown, especially Hillcrest.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...128-story.html

Awesome! I'm in hillcrest all the time and always dream of high rises extending in the area from downtown.. our skyline would look amazing!!

Boatguy619 Dec 1, 2016 3:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 7636717)
More density coming to Uptown, especially Hillcrest.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...128-story.html

How cool will it be landing at Lindbergh in between skyscrapers. Hopefully the height restriction isn't too low but building on the hill will make them look taller from the bay anyways.

bobbyv Dec 2, 2016 8:26 PM

IMO this is unfortunate news for both cities:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/12/01/san...elocation-2017

Boatguy619 Dec 2, 2016 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyv (Post 7640269)
IMO this is unfortunate news for both cities:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/12/01/san...elocation-2017

I'm staying positive. I think it will help tourism. SD will have less of a major city appeal and more small town vibe when people out of state think of visiting. And isn't that what people look for when they're trying to get away and relax on vacation?

Also we can now focus on a real convention center expansion

eburress Dec 2, 2016 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyv (Post 7640269)
IMO this is unfortunate news for both cities:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/12/01/san...elocation-2017

I'm not surprised. If Spanos had any intention of the Chargers staying, he pretty much made every possible wrong move...and obviously it was going to be a near miracle for the city to make it happen. Between the population and the city government, SD is a perfect storm of inaction/ineffectiveness.

JerellO Dec 3, 2016 4:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 7640373)
I'm staying positive. I think it will help tourism. SD will have less of a major city appeal and more small town vibe when people out of state think of visiting. And isn't that what people look for when they're trying to get away and relax on vacation?

Also we can now focus on a real convention center expansion

Not for all people.. for example... i've take. Getaway vacations in LA and SF.. but then again being from San Diego, you just want that big city vibe once in awhile


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 AM.

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