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)

mongoXZ May 24, 2007 2:01 PM

And like the Chinese fled LA's Chinatown for Monterey Park & SGV virtually all Chinese in San Diego are in the burbs. If you noticed in the area where the Horton Grand is they did make efforts to remake that place as a historic Chinatown with Chinese street lamps and lettering on some of the buildings. But those efforts are pretty much futile.

Don't forget our other ethnic enclaves (as much as I hate to coin that term). . . Linda Vista is Little Vietnam. Paradise Valley is Filipinotown. South Park is Braziltown. A 5 block radius in Southern Chula Vista is considered Samoatown. And San Ysidro Blvd is American Tijuana.:D

SDCAL May 24, 2007 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva (Post 2854914)
because there are no chinese people. cities are organic. remember, NY's, and virtually all other cities' chinatowns evolved, they didn't become chinatowns just because some city planners decided to create a cute little tourist trap 150 years ago.

LA had considerable Italian heritage some 100 yrs ago, but you don't see a little italy now for a good reason - all those italians either assimilated, or dispersed, and italian immigration tapered off.

It can have to do with city planning, and there are Chinese people here, as well as large Filipino and Vietnamese communities. In fact, historically downtown SD did have a Chinatown and Japanese community, many of whom made their lives in the fishing industry (much like the original Italians of Little Italy who were tuna fisherman). Due to the idea of an urban core and central density being a very new phemonenon here, the downtown Chinese/Japanese community didn't survive as San Diego's downtown became a red-light district for sailors and the Asian communiteis ended up fleeing to the suburbs - Mira Mesa area mainly, but East San Diego for some Vietnamese neighborhoods and National City for some Filipino neighborhoods. If San Diego had the pro-urban core development policies of today in place back then and if downtown wasn't allowed to become a seedy neighborhood nobody wanted to live in for decades, it's reasonable to assume the Chinatown would have grown into a sizeable urban Chinese neighborhood even with the ma and pop fishing industry demise.

As another poster highlighted, the site of this Chinese community was around J and 3rd, the area near the Chinese Cultural Museum (where you can get cool information on the history of SDs Chinatown). The CCDC has dubbed the region the "Asia-Pacific Thematic District" and there are still some apartment buildings in the area that house seniors who lived there during the time the Chinatown was in existance, but of course there is very little left today :( It would be nice if a Chinese food market would open up there, I know I would be a patron :)

SDCAL May 24, 2007 11:58 PM

**SAN DIEGO GETS THE SHAFT BY CA GOVERNMENT HIGH-SPEED RAIL PLAN***

Half-speed ahead for bullet train
L.A., Bay Area on route, but San Diego, others dropped
BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Sacramento Bureau
Article Last Updated: 05/23/2007 10:17:29 PM PDT


Click photo to enlargeĀ«1Ā»

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


VIEW: Train Network Phasing Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SACRAMENTO - Travelers in Anaheim, Los Angeles and the Bay Area will be first to ride the state's multibillion-dollar bullet train - if it ever gets built - the rail agency decided Wednesday.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority board, which is pursuing the project in several segments, decided to build first in areas that are expected to have the highest ridership and generate the most revenue.

That means that while the first segment could open by 2017, stops in San Diego, Irvine, the Inland Empire and Sacramento - which have been on earlier plans - will be postponed for years after that date.

"If we wish to do something, we need to figure out how to start moving forward in bite-sized pieces - pieces that have true ends," said board member Curt Pringle, the mayor of Anaheim. "I think this is an appropriate way to focus and move forward."

Under the plan approved Wednesday, the first segment would start in Anaheim, then stop in downtown Los Angeles, Burbank, Sylmar and Palmdale before heading up through the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area.

With bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph, the express travel time between Los Angeles and San Francisco is roughly 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hours, according to the authority.
The authority board has yet to chose between two potential routes through Northern California or name specific stops in the Bay Area.

Decades struggle

High-speed rail in California - now estimated to cost $40 billion - has struggled for decades to gain public support and funding, and once again is facing the threat of a setback.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to slash the authority's operating budget and postpone a $10 billion bond measure that is tentatively slated for 2008. The bond measure had originally been scheduled for a vote in 2004, but the Legislature has already postponed it twice.

Schwarzenegger has said he supports the concept of high-speed rail, but thinks the authority has to do more planning before it can receive major funding.

In fact, authority members Wednesday discussed a financing plan that they acknowledged was very general and lacked commitments from the private sector or the federal government.

"The authority needs to come up with a strong financing plan on where that additional revenue is going to come from, before we move forward with the bond," said Adam Mendelsohn, spokesman for the governor.

"He's absolutely committed to high-speed rail, believes it's critical for California's infrastructure growth, but also believes it's in the best interest of taxpayers that there be a strong financing plan developed before the additional revenue is put forward."

The Legislature is holding hearings to consider restoring at least some of the authority's operating funding for next year.

The authority was divided 5-2 in its decision Wednesday to pick an initial segment.

San Diego left out

Board member Lynn Schenk, a former congresswoman from San Diego, objected to her city being left off the initial route. Member Jeff Crane, an adviser to the governor, opposed the plan because he felt the project should have a more specific financing plan first.

Schenk, who has been involved in high-speed rail since the 1970s, said the San Diego-to-Los Angeles segment would be heavily traveled and should be part of the first stage.

"I believe by adopting the entire corridor as the first phase, we can get there much more quickly," Schenk said. "I can't vote for any plan approval that will leave San Diego in the high-speed rail dustbin of history."

But the board's executive director, Mehdi Moshed, said several areas along the Southern California route are difficult to plan right now.

Regional governmental groups in San Diego and Los Angeles are studying privately funded proposals to build high-speed rail systems using magnetic levitation technology, which would be incompatible with the steel-wheel technique included in the authority's plan.

He also said that heavy development in those areas makes it more difficult to choose a route for the line. He argued that those questions should be resolved before moving forward with planning a segment in that region.

SDCAL May 25, 2007 12:02 AM

**WHY WON'T THEY PROCEED WITH THE NEW LIBRARY, IT WILL NEED TO BE DONE EVENTUALLY AND GETS MORE EXPENSIVE EACH YEAR THEY PUT IT OFF***

Report urges funding for new San Diego library

By: North County Times wire services -
Last modified Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:18 PM PDT --

SAN DIEGO - A new central library should be among the top funding priorities in the San Diego city budget, according to a grand jury report released Tuesday.

The projected cost of a new library is approaching $200 million, with about $80 million available from the Centre City Development Corp. and $20 million from the state, the report said.

To augment the existing monies, the grand jury recommends issuing bonds to raise the rest of the money needed.


The report also recommends that the San Diego Library Foundation continue its fund-raising to add to the $3 million already received or pledged.

As envisioned, the new central library would have about four times as many computers as the 84 at the existing library, where there are too few to meet demand, according to the grand jury report.

The current library is not up to earthquake standards, and the cost to rewire the building to accommodate high-speed computer connections would not be cost effective, according to the report.

In the report's conclusion, the staff of San Diego's Central Library was commended for "its continued efforts to provide acceptable library services despite multiple shortcomings."

eburress May 25, 2007 2:22 AM

^^ Because the city has no money?

bmfarley May 25, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2856469)
**SAN DIEGO GETS THE SHAFT BY CA GOVERNMENT HIGH-SPEED RAIL PLAN***

Half-speed ahead for bullet train
L.A., Bay Area on route, but San Diego, others dropped
BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Sacramento Bureau
Article Last Updated: 05/23/2007 10:17:29 PM PDT

Oh my gosh... what a nut job of a headline! The project, if it is to occur, would be the largest publics works project in the history of California. It will take several years to build. If done at once, it would overwhelm the labor supply and raw materials to the point that costs would balloon out of control. It could not be built in a single phase... certainly logical people realize that! Rome was not built in a day!

I predict that before the first train runs.... the legs to San Diego and Sacramento will already be under construction.

stockjock May 25, 2007 5:11 AM

Back to the "Little Italy" conversation, I wonder if someone could turn part of Logan Heights into "Little Mexico". There's considerable Mexican heritage there, it borders downtown and could breathe life and money into that area, and there's already a core of shops providing food, goods and services that could be built upon.

SDCAL May 25, 2007 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2856777)
^^ Because the city has no money?

From the article:

'To augment the existing monies, the grand jury recommends issuing bonds to raise the rest of the money needed.'

SDCAL May 25, 2007 5:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2856868)
Oh my gosh... what a nut job of a headline! The project, if it is to occur, would be the largest publics works project in the history of California. It will take several years to build. If done at once, it would overwhelm the labor supply and raw materials to the point that costs would balloon out of control. It could not be built in a single phase... certainly logical people realize that! Rome was not built in a day!

I predict that before the first train runs.... the legs to San Diego and Sacramento will already be under construction.

Did you read the story? The only voting memebr on the board from SD voted against it because she felt SD-LA route should be on the intial phase, as it was on the initial plan.

from the article:

Board member Lynn Schenk, a former congresswoman from San Diego, objected to her city being left off the initial route.

Schenk, who has been involved in high-speed rail since the 1970s, said the San Diego-to-Los Angeles segment would be heavily traveled and should be part of the first stage.

I guess she is a nut-job as well for voting no as a protest vote for SD being left off? Have you been involved in high speed rail since the 70s?

SD_Phil May 25, 2007 6:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stockjock (Post 2857141)
Back to the "Little Italy" conversation, I wonder if someone could turn part of Logan Heights into "Little Mexico". There's considerable Mexican heritage there, it borders downtown and could breathe life and money into that area, and there's already a core of shops providing food, goods and services that could be built upon.

I like the idea but i'm not sure how it would work. How different would this be than old town? It might be more "authentic" to locate a latino district where latinos actually live but it seems like so much of the tourist infrastructure is already in old town (i'm thinking of the cheesy mexican souvenirs and the dozens of restaurants).

Insiders know that the real mexican food is found a bit further to the south (and the real and super cheap mexican food farther south still!)

I like the ideas though. San Diego really needs to start thinking of new ways to take advantage of its cultural capital

bmfarley May 25, 2007 6:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2857193)
Did you read the story? The only voting memebr on the board from SD voted against it because she felt SD-LA route should be on the intial phase, as it was on the initial plan.

from the article:

Board member Lynn Schenk, a former congresswoman from San Diego, objected to her city being left off the initial route.

Schenk, who has been involved in high-speed rail since the 1970s, said the San Diego-to-Los Angeles segment would be heavily traveled and should be part of the first stage.

I guess she is a nut-job as well for voting no as a protest vote for SD being left off? Have you been involved in high speed rail since the 70s?

I spoke to the headline. Yes, I read the article. The headline doesn't match any vibe in San Diego. And although I have heard of her before, gee.... I don't know what she stands for. Until now I suppose. She's not in the local news at all... and I have to question how in-touch she is with San Diegans. In fact, she lives in carlsbad; which really is not San Diego.

Nevertheless, as a taxpayer and many other things, I am fine with the San Diego leg not being in the first phase. I am unaware of there being any qualms here about not being in the first phase. After all, the original bond measure and plan did not include SD in the 1st phase... so why should there be a problem now... all of a sudden.

I believe it will actually work out for the better for San Diego. When the bond is passed for the first phase that is the time to raise questions about alternate routing to get from SD up to LA. If raised now.... before the bond is passed... well, it just creates consternation about the bond measure being scheduled to go to voters. I am saying it would be easier to delay.

In fact, I believe that the pro-Altamont dilemma up north, or anti-Pacheco, caused such a rucus that it was easier to delay the bond measure in 2004 or 2006.

Not being in the first phase may worked out similarly well for Sacramento. Wouldn't it be more practical and time effecient if trains ran down the I80 corridor from Sac and into the Bay Area... vs Altamont? I believe the SD to LA leg should go through Irvine rather than Riverside and San Bernardino. The coast will not work because of NIMBY's opposed to double tracks, aerial stuff, and catenary disturbing their views, but from Temecula or Murrieta the line may be able to cut right and get to Irvine more directly through the mountains. In my opinion that is worth raising as a question when the time is right.

SDCAL May 25, 2007 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2857322)
I spoke to the headline. Yes, I read the article. The headline doesn't match any vibe in San Diego. And although I have heard of her before, gee.... I don't know what she stands for. Until now I suppose. She's not in the local news at all... and I have to question how in-touch she is with San Diegans. In fact, she lives in carlsbad; which really is not San Diego.

Nevertheless, as a taxpayer and many other things, I am fine with the San Diego leg not being in the first phase. I am unaware of there being any qualms here about not being in the first phase. After all, the original bond measure and plan did not include SD in the 1st phase... so why should there be a problem now... all of a sudden.

I believe it will actually work out for the better for San Diego. When the bond is passed for the first phase that is the time to raise questions about alternate routing to get from SD up to LA. If raised now.... before the bond is passed... well, it just creates consternation about the bond measure being scheduled to go to voters. I am saying it would be easier to delay.

In fact, I believe that the pro-Altamont dilemma up north, or anti-Pacheco, caused such a rucus that it was easier to delay the bond measure in 2004 or 2006.

Not being in the first phase may worked out similarly well for Sacramento. Wouldn't it be more practical and time effecient if trains ran down the I80 corridor from Sac and into the Bay Area... vs Altamont? I believe the SD to LA leg should go through Irvine rather than Riverside and San Bernardino. The coast will not work because of NIMBY's opposed to double tracks, aerial stuff, and catenary disturbing their views, but from Temecula or Murrieta the line may be able to cut right and get to Irvine more directly through the mountains. In my opinion that is worth raising as a question when the time is right.

I see your point, I am just worried about the funding. It is hard enough trying to get money for the first phase (which the governor is standing in the way of saying he supports high speed rail but there needs to be more "research"). If the first phase does somehow get funding, the next phase (that would include the SD and Sac routes) would occur after the first phase, expected to be complete (if funded) in 2017. If the state budget is in the red in 2017, they could pospone the SD line indefinately and we could have LA-SF bennefiting with high speed rail while we sit and wait (as we do for so many other things). I think that as the 2nd larget city in the state and a large commuting population between LA-OC-SD, the LA-SD leg should really be on the first phase. I know people who commute to LA and OC for work, to catch international flights out of LAX, I just think the communting relationship between SD and LA is as busy and important as that between LA and SF

bushman61988 May 25, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stockjock (Post 2857141)
Back to the "Little Italy" conversation, I wonder if someone could turn part of Logan Heights into "Little Mexico". There's considerable Mexican heritage there, it borders downtown and could breathe life and money into that area, and there's already a core of shops providing food, goods and services that could be built upon.

Why have a "little Mexico" when the REAL Mexico is about 15 minutes away from Barrio Logan?

Not only that, but the city is close to 50% Mexican and there are tons of little Mexican neighborhoods. We don't need a designated "Little Mexico" if we want something Mexican.

eburress May 25, 2007 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2857186)
From the article:

'To augment the existing monies, the grand jury recommends issuing bonds to raise the rest of the money needed.'

If the city's only option is issuing bonds, then there is the debate about which projects are most bond-worthy and also the minor detail of getting lame-ass San Diegans to approve it.

I have a feeling a new arena is higher on the city's list of priorities and we all know how "can-do" this city's residents are.

sandiego_urban May 25, 2007 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 2858425)
Not only that, but the city is close to 50% Mexican and there are tons of little Mexican neighborhoods. We don't need a designated "Little Mexico" if we want something Mexican.

It's more like 30%, I believe



Here's the full article on the proposed tallest that I was able to scan. It not going to be the tallest at all, just another one reaching the 500' mean sea level maximum height. I'm getting worried that we'll have so many towers in the 450' - 500' height that there will be no height variation at all. I never thought I'd ever be saying that we need more shorter buildings, maybe in the 250' -350' range.


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...t%203/dt-1.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...t%203/dt-2.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...t%203/dt-4.jpg

eburress May 25, 2007 11:31 PM

^^ Hopefully that does not become SD's tallest building.

HurricaneHugo May 26, 2007 1:27 AM

wtf

is it just me or would building the LA-SD line first make more sense than building the SF-LA line?

Urban Sky May 26, 2007 2:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2833139)
The Broadway Pier was all torn up today. Is this a sign of good things to come?

really? all gone?! woah.

SDCAL May 26, 2007 3:19 AM

Embassy 1414
 
Got a brochure in the mail today for Embassy 1414 (I registered on their website) and the project looks really impressive. I like the architecture both inside and out, but looking at the brochure I imagine the prices are going to be pretty high though.

I moved downtown not too long ago and wouldn't be practical to move again, but if I was looking to move I'd definately look into this building. The good news is it looks like it is going to be built, the brochure and business card make it pretty obvious the project is moving forward. (CCDC lists a 2009 completion date)

Sorry I can't figure out how to post pics on here, the website is:
http://www.embassy1414.com/indexFlash.htm

it's in little italy and IMO looks like it will be a nice addition to downtown :)

HurricaneHugo May 26, 2007 4:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2859204)
Got a brochure in the mail today for Embassy 1414 (I registered on their website) and the project looks really impressive. I like the architecture both inside and out, but looking at the brochure I imagine the prices are going to be pretty high though.

I moved downtown not too long ago and wouldn't be practical to move again, but if I was looking to move I'd definately look into this building. The good news is it looks like it is going to be built, the brochure and business card make it pretty obvious the project is moving forward. (CCDC lists a 2009 completion date)

Sorry I can't figure out how to post pics on here, the website is:
http://www.embassy1414.com/indexFlash.htm

it's in little italy and IMO looks like it will be a nice addition to downtown :)

Good to hear about this, since many feared that it might have died.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:28 PM.

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