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)

HurricaneHugo Mar 2, 2013 6:27 AM

The truth is that we have to go up because we can't continue to spread horizontally forever.

People will want to come to San Diego because of our weather/other amenities and we can't really stop them. We're reaching our limit and must go up.

You can keep your suburban houses, but give us a couple of tall residential towers. We all can't have sprawling suburban houses, there's not enough room.

NYC2ATX Mar 2, 2013 7:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 6035427)
The truth is that we have to go up because we can't continue to spread horizontally forever.

People will want to come to San Diego because of our weather/other amenities and we can't really stop them. We're reaching our limit and must go up.

You can keep your suburban houses, but give us a couple of tall residential towers. We all can't have sprawling suburban houses, there's not enough room.

I've been thinking, I ignored San Diego for a while because I felt the architecture was mostly bland glass condos, and the height limits from Lindbergh Field prevented any tall showstoppers from grabbing my attention, but the more I think of it, that could be what defines San Diego's cityscape. Seeing the 9th/Broadway building's unique window pattern furthered this thought process for me.

To make a comparison, the reason Washington D.C. is so unique and so alive is because severe height limits have squashed all development to 12 floors or less (for the most part). This, in turn, has encouraged density and concentrated the design intuition and ability of local firms and bureaucrats on the groundscape as opposed to the skyline, creating a vibrant and desirable urban setting.

San Diego could gain the same advantage. If you all down there focus on street-level density, exemplary design, and public spaces that are vibrant, unique moments (that is, preserving the great structures and spaces you already have in addition to creating new)...you'll have a sublime metropolis. Do it, SD. I'm watching from New York, you have my attention. :tup:

XtremeDave Mar 3, 2013 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6031211)
PS: High-rise living has become very popular...look how many have been built and sold downtown in the last 10 years. Mid-rise buildings MIGHT be even more popular in UTC, Kearny Mesa, etc, (with people that want to live in them, not with the NIMBY's) as it MIGHT be a less radical move for people used to single family homes in the burbs than moving downtown with the homeless and other things they may not be used to. They would enjoy better views, shorter commutes, better amenities, etc. But we don't know because nobody has tried building one. Have they researched it? Don't know. Seemed to work along the beach before the Coastal Commission was formed, but to their credit, those locations had awesome views and beach access.

Focusing development on the right neighborhoods is the key to successful urban places. I like Downtown and think that it gets better with every new building that goes up, but the combination of high rents and quality of life issues (homeless) mean that too many people don't consider it a place they want to live. However I think that adding density to places like UTC and Kearny Mesa just because it would be more comfortable for suburbanites is a mistake. Without walkable neighborhoods and transportation systems that do not require every adult over 16 to own their own car, these neighborhoods will fail to convince suburban skeptics that urban living is superior (because these will be vertical suburbs, not true urban neighborhoods). The parking requirements will result in high rents (due to the cost of parking garages) and misery-creating gridlock, since every trip will require a car trip. UTC is already a pretty dense neighborhood, but the lack of a street grid, mixed use, and a complete reliance on personal automobiles for transit doesn't result in a place that I would consider a model for the rest of San Diego.

The challenge for San Diego's urbanization is the transportation problem. Its hard to convince people to live in the central core if their jobs are in UTC, Mira Mesa or Sorrento Valley and the daily commute requires driving on the 805 parking lot. It also becomes harder to defeat NIMBYs and no-growthers if every single new resident moving into new construction in their neighborhood will be relying on their car for every trip. New mid-rise and high rise construction has to be in walkable, transit accessible neighborhoods for this not to happen.

San Diego deserves great urban places, but high rise buildings are not a means to that end. Only through massively expanding the region's non-automobile transportation system can denser development be successful. Once this happens, high rise buildings will become welcomed (by residents, neighborhoods, politicians, and the market), and future San Diegans will have a real alternative to ever expanding sprawl.

spoonman Mar 4, 2013 1:19 AM

^^ Improving the transit system would definititely be a conduit to increased density. Hopefully with the extension of the Trolley to UTC, that will open some more doors. For now it seems that most infill (outside of downtown) is not happening near transit, but rather in places like Kearny Mesa, Carlsbad, Mira Mesa, etc.

Doug Manchester's condo project next to the UT headquarters would actually be a decent example of a project taking advantage of transit. Chula Vista Bayfront is another. Too bad there aren't more example like it.

mello Mar 4, 2013 6:03 PM

Extreme Dave and Aero: When you look at photos of the Miami Metro area they have mid and high rises spread all over the place and their traffic isn't absolute gridlock... So what would be the difference with maybe 10 fifteen floor residential structures in Kearny Mesa, a few more in UTC and Sorrento Valley?

I mean if Miami seems to be able to do it (granted their land is totally flat and on more of a grid) why can't San Diego do it. I have also been thinking that the future of infill may be demolishing old 60's and 70's era office park areas like the area just west of the 5/805 merge (The real Sorrento Valley for all long time SD residents). That area is all junk and could be totally redeveloped.

Mission Valley could easily fit in 10 more high rise residential structures. Then you have all of that crap just off of Convoy, one story office warehouse type places that could be scrapped and built vertically on. San Diego really does have a ton of throw away sections that are way underutilized, I think this could be the future of urban infill.

aerogt3 Mar 5, 2013 9:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6037587)
Extreme Dave and Aero: When you look at photos of the Miami Metro area they have mid and high rises spread all over the place and their traffic isn't absolute gridlock... So what would be the difference with maybe 10 fifteen floor residential structures in Kearny Mesa, a few more in UTC and Sorrento Valley?

I mean if Miami seems to be able to do it (granted their land is totally flat and on more of a grid) why can't San Diego do it. I have also been thinking that the future of infill may be demolishing old 60's and 70's era office park areas like the area just west of the 5/805 merge (The real Sorrento Valley for all long time SD residents). That area is all junk and could be totally redeveloped.

Mission Valley could easily fit in 10 more high rise residential structures. Then you have all of that crap just off of Convoy, one story office warehouse type places that could be scrapped and built vertically on. San Diego really does have a ton of throw away sections that are way underutilized, I think this could be the future of urban infill.

I would love for that to happen! But consumers have to be willing to pay for it. Or people from this forum need to make hundred million dollar donations. Right now, they are not :( In order for it to happen, there needs to be:

1.) market pressure that drives up prices to make it feasible (population growth, etc.)
2.) a cultural shift in the type and standard of living people want

HurricaneHugo Mar 6, 2013 7:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XtremeDave (Post 6036881)
Focusing development on the right neighborhoods is the key to successful urban places. I like Downtown and think that it gets better with every new building that goes up, but the combination of high rents and quality of life issues (homeless) mean that too many people don't consider it a place they want to live. However I think that adding density to places like UTC and Kearny Mesa just because it would be more comfortable for suburbanites is a mistake. Without walkable neighborhoods and transportation systems that do not require every adult over 16 to own their own car, these neighborhoods will fail to convince suburban skeptics that urban living is superior (because these will be vertical suburbs, not true urban neighborhoods). The parking requirements will result in high rents (due to the cost of parking garages) and misery-creating gridlock, since every trip will require a car trip. UTC is already a pretty dense neighborhood, but the lack of a street grid, mixed use, and a complete reliance on personal automobiles for transit doesn't result in a place that I would consider a model for the rest of San Diego.

The challenge for San Diego's urbanization is the transportation problem. Its hard to convince people to live in the central core if their jobs are in UTC, Mira Mesa or Sorrento Valley and the daily commute requires driving on the 805 parking lot. It also becomes harder to defeat NIMBYs and no-growthers if every single new resident moving into new construction in their neighborhood will be relying on their car for every trip. New mid-rise and high rise construction has to be in walkable, transit accessible neighborhoods for this not to happen.

San Diego deserves great urban places, but high rise buildings are not a means to that end. Only through massively expanding the region's non-automobile transportation system can denser development be successful. Once this happens, high rise buildings will become welcomed (by residents, neighborhoods, politicians, and the market), and future San Diegans will have a real alternative to ever expanding sprawl.

With increased density, public transportation will follow. ;)

There's a reason the UTC area is getting a trolley line and has a bunch of bus connections to downtown.

kpexpress Mar 8, 2013 5:21 AM

Saw them conducting soil tests at park and e today.

SDfan Mar 8, 2013 6:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 6042648)
Saw them conducting soil tests at park and e today.

What is supposed to go there?

S.DviaPhilly Mar 9, 2013 12:02 AM

Bosa
 
I heard a rumor that Bosa bought the building in between Horton Plaza and the Meridian residential building. It used to be high end retail but now is mostly (if not all) vacant. I heard that Bosa wants to be build a 34 story tower there, leaving the retail at street level. Anyone know any truth to this?!?!? Curious and intrigued.

HurricaneHugo Mar 9, 2013 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly (Post 6043745)
I heard a rumor that Bosa bought the building in between Horton Plaza and the Meridian residential building. It used to be high end retail but now is mostly (if not all) vacant. I heard that Bosa wants to be build a 34 story tower there, leaving the retail at street level. Anyone know any truth to this?!?!? Curious and intrigued.

I don't know but I hope the rumor is right!

mongoXZ Mar 9, 2013 7:24 AM

The last I heard about the building was that it was converted into office space by some healthcare company. Are they still there?

I too would like to see that 80s relic torn down and a mixed use tower in its place. Where did you hear about this SDviaPnilly?

tyleraf Mar 9, 2013 9:47 PM

Is anyone else interested in Mayor Filner's proposal to host the Olympics? I think it would be great for development.An Olympic Challenge | UTSanDiego.com

tyleraf Mar 10, 2013 7:35 AM

SDviaPhilly, is this the article you're referencing? http://www.hughesmarino.com/articles/downtown-dirt/

Bertrice Mar 10, 2013 5:57 PM

filner says all kinds of crazy shit. if it were up to him SD would incorporate TJ.
olympics are money losing ventures. btw the embarcadero project is in full swing.

Crackertastik Mar 10, 2013 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6045348)
filner says all kinds of crazy shit. if it were up to him SD would incorporate TJ.
olympics are money losing ventures. btw the embarcadero project is in full swing.

I've read a few articles that have stated the same thing; however, I have also read that bidding on the Olympics, and coming up short, actually bodes quite well for the bidding city.

So, why not. San Diego isn't going to win it. Might as well bid.

HurricaneHugo Mar 10, 2013 6:41 PM

People say Olympics lose money because the city spends billions on infrastructure and only gets a few billion back.

...but if we fix A LOT of our infrastructure and hold an Olympics...is it not worth losing money?

spoonman Mar 10, 2013 7:56 PM

Interesting that Bosa may be taking 880 W Broadway back from the Irvine Co. With that, 1st &Island, B-way & PCH, and the site next to Meridian, he'll have a full pipeline full for the next several years.

Anyone know if he has any sites in the East Village?

SDfan Mar 10, 2013 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6045046)
SDviaPhilly, is this the article you're referencing? http://www.hughesmarino.com/articles/downtown-dirt/

Hmm. I would not be opposed to a new tower over there. As some of you know, the gaslamp creates a bit of a lull in the skyline. A Bosa tower would be nice filler.

I know Bosa has property in the East Village, but I think its the space right across from Vantage Pointe due south, or in and around that area. That will probably be a much later development, I don't see Bosa lowering their market segment anytime soon.

They should have more than a few properties aside from the ones we know about where they are going to be developing soon.

I hope they get the 880 Broadway property back, that office tower tower by Irvine is so uninspiring...

XtremeDave Mar 10, 2013 11:02 PM

Could a San Diego/Tijuana Olympics even be possible without completely opening the border for the 2 weeks of the Games? There's no way the IOC would pick SD/TJ if athletes and fans would have to wait hours crossing between countries.

San Diego has none of the infrastructure needed to host the Olympics. The airport is too small and the stadiums are either too small or non-existent. San Diego looks like an inferior option compared to LA or San Francisco, let alone any other cities worldwide.

Lets take the money that would be spent on preparing a plan/hosting selection committees/bribing IOC officials and use it on actually improving San Diego's infrastructure. Filner shouldn't be wasting his time on superficial stunts like this and actually work on improving infrastructure (roads, transit, etc) that would benefit San Diegans every day, not just a 2 week period 11 years from now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:52 PM.

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