Quote:
Actually, National City had a ton of great high rise proposals before the market crashed. And the community (at least the planning department, elected officials) embraced the density, w/ several projects being 20-24 stories. http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/..._lz6e29qa.html http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3...olution-R2.jpg Unfortunately, only 2 of the proposed projects actually were built, Centro (4 stories) and Harborview (5 stories). Quote:
Quote:
This new Sempra Headquarters/Cisterra office building is definitely a downgrade and a disappointment from the Cosmopolitan proposal several years ago. And it looks almost identical to Diamondview Tower, in height, bulk, and architecture.. I think having an office tower is better for that site than the condos or mixed-use condo-hotels because it ensures the Ballpark neighborhood remains active 24-7, and I the neighborhood already has its share of hotels and residential units. I just wish they could have made had the Sempra Headquarters in that Cosmo-style sleek 480-foot tower that was proposed... |
Quote:
This just occurred to be, but the Cosmopolitan was the same style as the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas, which was originally slated to be mostly condos. Our Cosmo project imploded the same way that the Vegas Cosmo project imploded, though the Vegas project was ultimately saved by Deutshe Bank. San Diego http://ccdc.com/scripts/gis/webporta...oad.aspx?id=65 Las Vegas http://www.vegascondoscene.com/wp-co...-las-vegas.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think there will come a time someday when the market or someone in San Diego challenges the FAA's nonsense blanket 500-foot limit. And while there's no height limit in National City, there's not the market demand for even a 300+ foot building. Also, there's really no high rises in National City except for the Bayview Condos 120 feet and the former Holiday Inn (100 feet). |
Quote:
Couple of buildings along Imperial Avenue would be nice |
Quote:
The Coronado Bridge looks pretty iconic and don't want to mess that up. This is great forward thinking though! |
Quote:
Anyways, I doubt anyone in San Diego would challenge the FAA over height issues. That would take strong leadership and an organized effort on the part of developers, politicians, and community groups - an effort not likely to materialize in SD any time soon. |
Damn. This thread is dead. We have a lot of activity starting up, but not a lot of action here...bummer
|
Because we're all enjoying the great weather before it pours!
Haven't visited this site for the longest time. So after catching up and reading a few pages, SDfan: since when did you become such a cynic?:P |
Oh and I like that Coronado bridge proposal. That thing needs a little sprucing up. What happened to the fancy lighting proposal? Couple that with the bike lane and we've got a winner right there!
|
Quote:
Remember, this is San Diego. |
And I love it!
|
Quote:
You can thank my masters thesis research for that. I have a very in-depth knowledge of SD urban development history. Couple that with 10 years of tracking SD city planning and you end up being less than enthusiastic at times. PS, I've been reading this forum since 2003... 10 years! I feel a bit old. |
Urbdezine San Diego referenced and commented on posts in this forum. They botched up whatever the were trying to say. Interesting nonetheless.
http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/ |
Quote:
Quote:
Except we say that every single day. |
That urbdezine site is interesting but all we are saying is that the highest and best use for that Cisterra project should be a tower at least 400 feet tall that is also top notch at street level.
Regarding Golden Hill having a 30 foot height limit??? WTF, just another reason why every parcel in Downtown should be built out to maximum density if all of the surrounding hoods will shit a brick over anything above 30 to 65 feet (Hillcrest) it looks like we will really have to concentrate everything in downtown. I think that crappy grocery store on 30th in South Park is a perfect location for a new grocery with 5 to 8 levels of apartments on top but it looks like that will never happen. I guess its all about Downtown and National City then for packing in towers. The Chula Vista Bayfront is also a good place to start going above 400 feet as well, so much room down there and no residents anywhere close by to complain. |
Will the kind people of Urbdezine please come and share their wisdom with us so that we will no longer be ignorant of new urbanism?
Please. We already know the importance of good street level activity, that's a basic tenant we don't need to keep repeating on this forum. What we want is increased density in downtown projects, because I can assure you, no where else could there be such developments in the city of San Diego. You can be as "creative" as you want with your architecture and "dezine" when dealing with zoning ordinances, but you won't be able to make an actual dent in the region's housing crisis unless increased density (which includes height) is more widely accepted in the cities urban neighborhoods. In basic: Urbdezine -elaborate, otherwise, we already know. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
The CV bayfront is currently zoned for an allowance of 300ft or less. The Coastal Commission allowed for heights up to 300ft, but not a single foot more. Give the practicalities of high-rise construction, I'm going to guess that the highest anything on the CV bayfront will get is around 240ft to 250ft. San Diego county is boxed in when it comes to high-rise development. It's downtown (uh... Lindbergh) or National City (economic limitations). University City is nearly built out (exceptions for 7 more towers, all of which will be less than 24 stories, majority around 15 story mid-rises). Chula Vista's "Milenia" or East Urban Center won't be much in terms of high-rise development (I believe they're capped out at 15 stories or less). Oside and North County are 8 stories and less. East County is a joke. And our urban neighborhoods are revolting granny flats, let alone multifamily housing. But hey, we'll deal with it, right? Sorry folks. :( |
Apology
Bill here from UrbDeZine, author of the offending comment. I'm a fan of your active and informed discussions, and didn't mean to offend. I was just pointing out that membership of the forum reflects the title of the website, whereas other groups may focus more on other aspects of new urbanism, not that your group disputes the value of street level activity - perhaps inartfully stated. Sorry for the offense and keep up the great discussions.
|
Bill, this a large forum with dozens of sections, mostly all of them relate to urbanism in some way. You should check them out. ;)
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.