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 May 10, 2008 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoastersBolts (Post 3542709)
I realize these drawings are preliminary, but, I don't like this look. First, they're twin towers (like we don't have enough of those). And the buildings are just not attractive. If you're going to build a flagship hotel, at least make it look somewhat iconic. Look at what Hyatt did with both the Manchester Grand and the Seaport expansion - at least both of those stand out. This Marriott, not so much.

Agreed.

sandiego_urban May 10, 2008 4:24 PM

Thank goodness these are preliminary renderings, because I also hate them! :yuck:

Here's a link to the project description, and more importantly, the CCDC design committee response that criticizes what has been presented to them. While it seems they (as well as many residents and business owners in the area) are in favor of the project, there are concerns about the tower and base design and it's inward appearance (think Horton Plaza).

The last letter by Gwynne Pugh (Attachment D) makes some good suggestions and points out the many flaws of this initial proposal.

http://www.ccdc.com/events/resources/Item%2041.pdf

Marina_Guy May 10, 2008 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiego_urban (Post 3543239)
Thank goodness these are preliminary renderings, because I also hate them! :yuck:

Here's a link to the project description, and more importantly, the CCDC design committee response that criticizes what has been presented to them. While it seems they (as well as many residents and business owners in the area) are in favor of the project, there are concerns about the tower and base design and it's inward appearance (think Horton Plaza).

The last letter by Gwynne Pugh (Attachment D) makes some good suggestions and points out the many flaws of this initial proposal.

http://www.ccdc.com/events/resources/Item%2041.pdf

Looks like two ugly hospitals with a garage between. Comments by Gwynne P. are well put. The architects could do better.

SDCAL May 10, 2008 11:31 PM

As much as I want to see ballpark village get off the ground, I have to agree with fellow posters in that these renderings are crap

This is blah architecture, and there is nothing going on at street-level

It seems completely boxed-in and ugly. I would hire a new architect

Fusey May 12, 2008 3:18 PM

They look like some crap built in Reno in the 1970's.

keg92101 May 12, 2008 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 3546761)
They look like some crap built in Reno in the 1970's.


That's giving them too much credit!

Derek May 12, 2008 6:00 PM

Where did you got those designs? At the toilet store?








I had to.

ShekelPop May 12, 2008 7:43 PM

it looks like they're trying to use the same stone-colored building materials used in the ballpark. i wouldnt mind the marriot design as much if it was just the one tower, but like has been voiced before, the two towers together makes the design less appealing

bmfarley May 13, 2008 3:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 3547277)
it looks like they're trying to use the same stone-colored building materials used in the ballpark. i wouldnt mind the marriot design as much if it was just the one tower, but like has been voiced before, the two towers together makes the design less appealing

Yes, I'd agree. Boxy and stale come to mind. Currently, it feels similar to the other tower that is nearing completion on the southwest side of Harbor. This design makes my insides tumble when I think of what he area will look like if this gets built.

But, with this comes opportunity for change and for John Moores to show that he can respond to community feedback.

It would look much more appealing if the sides had more texture or articulation to them. Inset windows or small balconies? Curved ends? Windows facing north and south?

sandiego_urban May 13, 2008 5:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 3547277)
it looks like they're trying to use the same stone-colored building materials used in the ballpark. i wouldnt mind the marriot design as much if it was just the one tower, but like has been voiced before, the two towers together makes the design less appealing

I'm still not liking it, but you're probably right in saying that it wouldn't be as offensive if there was only one tower. I also think it's a bad idea to match it to the ballpark, because I'd hate to see anything in the East Village look the same. I'm still praying for a massive overhaul of this thing!!


Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley
It would look much more appealing if the sides had more texture or articulation to them. Inset windows or small balconies? Curved ends? Windows facing north and south?

My exact thoughts! SOMETHING needs to be done with the sides of towers.

SDCAL May 13, 2008 6:17 AM

Using an organic material on a skyscraper is challenging, and it just doesn't work with this stone slapped to the sides. Slapping the same type of stone on the side of high rises in a pathetic attempt to match the ballpark will not work, it's going to look too planned, too cheap and unimaginative. I thought East Village was going for hip, edgy, modern - - this is just repulsive. The person who said it looks like c 1970 Reno is on the money, that's exactly what these vile excuses for architecture look like.

I hope these idiots don't decide to slap this stone on all major EV projects, like the library if it ever gets built

I don't mean to sound like such a complainer, but EV is the future of downtonw and it's downtown's chance to make a statement and steer away from the Miami-Vancouverish white balcony-infested towers at the bay. These towers are supposed to reach the 500 ft mark, was just really hoping for something that didn't look this boring and hideously pathetic :slob: :slob: :slob: :slob: :slob:

Marina_Guy May 13, 2008 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 3548788)
Using an organic material on a skyscraper is challenging, and it just doesn't work with this stone slapped to the sides. Slapping the same type of stone on the side of high rises in a pathetic attempt to match the ballpark will not work, it's going to look too planned, too cheap and unimaginative. I thought East Village was going for hip, edgy, modern - - this is just repulsive. The person who said it looks like c 1970 Reno is on the money, that's exactly what these vile excuses for architecture look like.

I hope these idiots don't decide to slap this stone on all major EV projects, like the library if it ever gets built

I don't mean to sound like such a complainer, but EV is the future of downtonw and it's downtown's chance to make a statement and steer away from the Miami-Vancouverish white balcony-infested towers at the bay. These towers are supposed to reach the 500 ft mark, was just really hoping for something that didn't look this boring and hideously pathetic :slob: :slob: :slob: :slob: :slob:

These comments are good to hear. I just hope there is enough public uprising to change the design, because right now that project is on a fast track. The mayor is 100% behind it..one big huge chunk of TOT and I don't think he cares one bit about the design.

The only reason the pedestrian bridge is being built now is because of those two hotels (Hilton and now the Marriott). The visitor industry is a very powerful force in SD politics.

Please take the time to go to the design review meeting to share your comments about the design... I think CCAC is discussing it tonight as well.

This area was originally 'zoned' as employment lands...then condos, and now another hotel... a massive hotel. These types of hotels are very busy or extremely dead and I am not sure that type of vacancy is good for the East Village. But I think that issue is mute now.

bushman61988 May 13, 2008 5:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3542430)
CCDC uploaded new renderings of the proposed Marriot in the Ballpark area, The site is the one bounded by Imperial Avenue, Park, 11th and the Trolley tracks.

Only 2 renderings were provided. I don't know why the south facing view toward the Coronado Bridge was not provided. Seems odd.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...n/Marriot1.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...n/Marriot2.jpg

A 3 pg pdf file of the rendering is here. Included is a plan drawing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 3548788)
Using an organic material on a skyscraper is challenging, and it just doesn't work with this stone slapped to the sides. Slapping the same type of stone on the side of high rises in a pathetic attempt to match the ballpark will not work, it's going to look too planned, too cheap and unimaginative. I thought East Village was going for hip, edgy, modern - - this is just repulsive. The person who said it looks like c 1970 Reno is on the money, that's exactly what these vile excuses for architecture look like.

I hope these idiots don't decide to slap this stone on all major EV projects, like the library if it ever gets built

I don't mean to sound like such a complainer, but EV is the future of downtown and it's downtown's chance to make a statement and steer away from the Miami-Vancouverish white balcony-infested towers at the bay. These towers are supposed to reach the 500 ft mark, was just really hoping for something that didn't look this boring and hideously pathetic :slob: :slob: :slob: :slob: :slob:


I really could not have said it better myself. Just look at these pathetic monstrosities...

It combines the bulkiness of the new Hilton Convention Center Hotel with the dreadful plainess of the north and south sides of the Hyatt, not to mention the awful, enormous podium that seems to completely enclose and encase the project even WORSE than the present Manchester Hyatt complex does, to the point where it almost seems like a Las Vegas Resort.


I was glad to see that in the design review panel basically pan the project for its absolute complete lack of retail (I think Marriott was proposing a ridiculous 7,000 sq ft of retail throughout the entire project!), the atrocious design, the massive podium, the Twin tower problem, and the shortening of the towers while making them bulkier, when it should be the exact opposite.

I also tried to get earlier preliminary plans of the project that seemed much nicer although still flawed.


I really will try to go to the next design review panel with my union (Unite Here, Local 30) who have interest in the project, but not for the design issues, and comment on the hideousness.

This is the perfect spot as any to build 700-foot towers, with a location that is FAR from the airport approach, and that ridiculous 500-foot blanket that is placed over the whole of Downtown as opposed to a more stepped-down height limit (don’t even get me started on that).

Alas, the powers that be will probably have this project rammed through like that damn Hilton Convention Center Hotel (which, I admit, didn’t come out as bad as I thought).



Here’s some links to the Master Plan with drawings

http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/B...ter%20Plan.pdf (on page 25 is the reference to height limit)

http://www.onlinecpi.org/article.php?list=type&type=246

sandiego_urban May 14, 2008 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 3549541)
This is the perfect spot as any to build 700-foot towers, with a location that is FAR from the airport approach, and that ridiculous 500-foot blanket that is placed over the whole of Downtown as opposed to a more stepped-down height limit (don’t even get me started on that).

Well said!

Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but it appears that the crane for Vantage Pointe might be 50'-75' taller than Symphony Towers (499') on the left and no planes have crashed into it so far....

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...bCam/last1.jpg

malsponger May 14, 2008 12:27 AM

^^ Good call. If anything Vantage Pointe would be a tad further than Symphony towers from this reference (Omni?) so I do not see how an optical illusion would be possible. Alas, something has risen above 500ft.

malsponger May 14, 2008 12:35 AM

Oh and I also just noticed Google Earth updated their San Diego satellite image! No more half complete ballpark and warehoused East Village.

bmfarley May 14, 2008 1:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malsponger (Post 3550533)
Oh and I also just noticed Google Earth updated their San Diego satellite image! No more half complete ballpark and warehoused East Village.

Sweet observation. I looked at GE yesterday and didn't notice. Maybe it occured in the past 24 hours.

Now... pick the date images were captured! I'll estimate sometime in February or March 2008.... before daylight savings took effect, and before the homeles tent at Tailgate Park downtown was taken down.
I notice there is activity inside Petco and the pool for Fit Athletic isunder construction. I believe it lloked like that in February or early March.

Additionally, it's a weekday. Probably before 3 or 3:30pm.

Interestingly, it looks like only the downtown area was updated. San Ysidro definately was not. And, some photo stitching puts 2 planes landing at Lindbergh at only 0.70 miles apart on their approach.

bmfarley May 14, 2008 1:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malsponger (Post 3550511)
^^ Good call. If anything Vantage Pointe would be a tad further than Symphony towers from this reference (Omni?) so I do not see how an optical illusion would be possible. Alas, something has risen above 500ft.

Temporary permits are granted for things like cranes. Don't worry, the FAA and airplanes know that that crane is there.

Derek May 14, 2008 1:53 AM

Wouldn't they know that a building is there? :D


Actually, think about that one.

Fusey May 14, 2008 2:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malsponger (Post 3550533)
Oh and I also just noticed Google Earth updated their San Diego satellite image! No more half complete ballpark and warehoused East Village.

Not on Google Maps yet. That seriously drives me nuts. When were those satellite images taken? 2002 or 2003?


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:36 PM.

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