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)

kpexpress May 15, 2011 2:22 AM

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...timusprime.jpg

OPTIMUS PRIME!!!

SD_Phil May 15, 2011 2:54 AM

Well, here's to hoping they break the law.

Also, design-wise, those buildings are SO San Diego.

Leo the Dog May 15, 2011 3:23 AM

^ I like it!

SDfan May 15, 2011 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 5278049)

I'm so confused...

bmfarley May 15, 2011 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 5278141)
I'm so confused...

It has been a while since I reviewed the applicable language, BUT, I believe the southeastern portion of downtown is outside the 500-foot cap.

Also, the 500-foot cap is not a cast in stone cap. Basically, as I recall, the FAA provides criteria or guidelines for not penetrating the flight-zone. They don't say "no" to a development, but, retain the right/guidelines for certain aircraft landings/takeoffs. In their perspective, if they think there are certain criteria or guidelines being violated, then they'd re-look at the aircraft that would be permitted to land/take-off... and perhaps under certain weather related conditions.

I also believe that the General Plan, or Downtown Plan, indicates that the flight-zone should not be penetrated due to the implications to flight restrictions.

So, FAA would re-evaluate permissible use of Lindbergh, or, convey implications of this or that development, but they would not say 'no'.

Anyone is free to corrrect me... I am going from memory.

SDfan May 15, 2011 6:34 PM

So is this building 519' at ground level or sea level?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5278475)
It has been a while since I reviewed the applicable language, BUT, I believe the southeastern portion of downtown is outside the 500-foot cap.

Also, the 500-foot cap is not a cast in stone cap. Basically, as I recall, the FAA provides criteria or guidelines for not penetrating the flight-zone. They don't say "no" to a development, but, retain the right/guidelines for certain aircraft landings/takeoffs. In their perspective, if they think there are certain criteria or guidelines being violated, then they'd re-look at the aircraft that would be permitted to land/take-off... and perhaps under certain weather related conditions.

I also believe that the General Plan, or Downtown Plan, indicates that the flight-zone should not be penetrated due to the implications to flight restrictions.

So, FAA would re-evaluate permissible use of Lindbergh, or, convey implications of this or that development, but they would not say 'no'.

Anyone is free to corrrect me... I am going from memory.

If that's the case, and this block is outside the 500' cap, then why wouldn't the developer push the envelope to 550' or 600'? I mean 19' is a start, but come on, they could do better.

tyleraf May 15, 2011 8:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 5278493)
So is this building 519' at ground level or sea level?



If that's the case, and this block is outside the 500' cap, then why wouldn't the developer push the envelope to 550' or 600'? I mean 19' is a start, but come on, they could do better.

Still even 519' is progress and may open new doors for future taller buildings.

llamaorama May 15, 2011 9:23 PM

I love it.

Sure in most cities it would be ugly, but it is totally appropriate for a sunny, colorful, warm place like San Diego.

I mean, the ocean is a bright blue, the mountains are yellow and green, and the roofs of the houses are orange. Why can't the skyline have saturated colors?

HurricaneHugo May 16, 2011 2:26 AM

If that's really 519', then send them back to the drawing board!

If they're going to be our new tallest then they better be almost as good as OAP!

HurricaneHugo May 16, 2011 2:30 AM

Update on the Courthouse

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6045013_n.jpg

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._5492508_n.jpg

Is that all it's rising? :(

psychotron May 16, 2011 3:51 PM

If those pics are recent, that looks like it's it: 16 stories/101.5m/333ft. They just topped out this week.

SDfan May 16, 2011 5:23 PM

^^Really? I think it has a couple more to go before it reaches the 16 max point.

eburress May 16, 2011 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5278475)
It has been a while since I reviewed the applicable language, BUT, I believe the southeastern portion of downtown is outside the 500-foot cap.

Also, the 500-foot cap is not a cast in stone cap. Basically, as I recall, the FAA provides criteria or guidelines for not penetrating the flight-zone. They don't say "no" to a development, but, retain the right/guidelines for certain aircraft landings/takeoffs. In their perspective, if they think there are certain criteria or guidelines being violated, then they'd re-look at the aircraft that would be permitted to land/take-off... and perhaps under certain weather related conditions.

I also believe that the General Plan, or Downtown Plan, indicates that the flight-zone should not be penetrated due to the implications to flight restrictions.

So, FAA would re-evaluate permissible use of Lindbergh, or, convey implications of this or that development, but they would not say 'no'.

Anyone is free to corrrect me... I am going from memory.

I don't honestly know the rules or regulations, but wasn't it the FAA that forced that developer to lop the top few floors off of the tower they were building near Montgomery Field a few years ago?

dl3000 May 17, 2011 3:20 AM

I think that building was penetrating a different kind of airspace since it was closer to the airfield. I think bmfarley is correct but I am also going by memory. If they breach the 500' cieling, then that will simply affect airplane operations at Lindbergh. I am assuming this means that the runway displacement threshold expands.

202_Cyclist May 17, 2011 3:49 AM

Quote:

I don't honestly know the rules or regulations, but wasn't it the FAA that forced that developer to lop the top few floors off of the tower they were building near Montgomery Field a few years ago?
Correct-- I'll find the regulations tomorrow but the FAA has complete sovereignty over the navigable airspace and a building is a hazard, FAA can limit its height. Here in the DC area, two buildings in Rosslyn, VA, had to get FAA approval. The buildings are 380-400 ft and are near the flight path to Reagan-National.

Is office tower's height a hazard?
Sunroad told to halt work on building near city's Montgomery Field


http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n5tootall.html

202_Cyclist May 17, 2011 3:58 AM

I posted this a few yrs back about building heights (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169060)

This is from the FAA (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp ).


CFR Title 14 Part 77.13 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA:

any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft above ground level
any construction or alteration:
within 20,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 ft
within 10,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft
within 5,000 ft of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface
any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards
when requested by the FAA
any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location.

The relevant regulation is 2004 CFR 14 Sec. 77.23, Standards for determining obstructions. The link is: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...14cfr77.23.pdf ). The following FAA order about objects affecting the navigable airspace is also useful: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...R/air0502.html. Figure 5-2-1 notes that a developer has to provide the FAA notice of proposed alteration or construction if the building or tower is more than 200 feet above ground level. The height of the ground level isn't at issue. Thus, if a developer built a 175 foot building on a mountain at 5,000feet above sea level, the developer not not be required to contact FAA.

Grumbo Griel May 20, 2011 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 5274108)
good to see some of these long forgotten proposals revived. 15 & Island looks great!

Can someone give me some perspective on this: what does this recent action mean for the likelihood that the project will actually proceed to completion? Does it change the odds? And what are the odds?

tyleraf May 20, 2011 10:20 PM

Doug manchester is moving forward on the Navy Broadway Complex project.http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...eway-complex-/ Finally!

eburress May 22, 2011 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 5285727)
Doug manchester is moving forward on the Navy Broadway Complex project.http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...eway-complex-/ Finally!

I'm interested to see what all these buildings end up looking like coming out of their "detailed designs." I'm guessing the design of most of the buildings will change from what we saw in the renderings.

bmfarley May 22, 2011 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 5279614)
I don't honestly know the rules or regulations, but wasn't it the FAA that forced that developer to lop the top few floors off of the tower they were building near Montgomery Field a few years ago?

No. The FAA told the city what the implications were to aviation. The city was compelled to act, otherwise Montgomery was screwed for air planes.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11 AM.

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