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)

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6690364)
well here it comes and not a moment too soon.
I don't want to here a bunch of crap like they should just build more mass transit or something along those lines. drive the 5 everyday and you will see.:yes:

http://www.10news.com/news/calif-coa...medium=twitter

You do realize that this "expansion" isn't adding any general lanes at all? It's going to put in 4 carpool lanes down the center, almost like how they are on the 15. These lanes will be good for buses (transit), carpools, vanpools, and zero emission vehicles (until special permits for those types of vehicles run out) The 5 sucks, but it's going to keep sucking - maybe less with these carpool lanes, but the only long term solution is more transit options (greater Coaster frequency, a complete bike network, double tracking, etc.) and better land use decisions (living closer to job centers, as in greater densities. :tup:

Bertrice Aug 14, 2014 1:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6690421)
You do realize that this "expansion" isn't adding any general lanes at all? It's going to put in 4 carpool lanes down the center, almost like how they are on the 15. These lanes will be good for buses (transit), carpools, vanpools, and zero emission vehicles (until special permits for those types of vehicles run out) The 5 sucks, but it's going to keep sucking - maybe less with these carpool lanes, but the only long term solution is more transit options (greater Coaster frequency, a complete bike network, double tracking, etc.) and better land use decisions (living closer to job centers, as in greater densities. :tup:

right on que. NoCo is plenty dense and only getting denser. this is the only link between us and LA/OC. wait why am I explaining this to you. This is why I had the disclaimer in my last post. some posters here have the most density without room for development.

dales5050 Aug 14, 2014 1:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6690421)
The only long term solution is more transit options (greater Coaster frequency, a complete bike network, double tracking, etc.) and better land use decisions (living closer to job centers, as in greater densities. :tup:


Is it even reasonable to say mass transit is a viable solution when you're talking about North County? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and would support it but is it even possible when all things are considered?

The current main rail line runs along the cost, which pretty much kills any opportunity to build density around each station. Which is sad.

I think better land use and creating more 'centers' around the region is the key. It also seems more feasible to me.

spoonman Aug 14, 2014 1:58 AM

I am shocked by the good sense of the Coastal Commission to approve this project. Not a single objection...is it only state projects that get the green light? (sarcasm)

spoonman Aug 14, 2014 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6690460)
Is it even reasonable to say mass transit is a viable solution when you're talking about North County? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and would support it but is it even possible when all things are considered?

The current main rail line runs along the cost, which pretty much kills any opportunity to build density around each station. Which is sad.

I think better land use and creating more 'centers' around the region is the key. It also seems more feasible to me.

Good points. NIMBYs will be a little more open to density that is confined to specific areas. Not to say that will always hold true (Bay Park, et.al.), but it is more likely than not.

For NoCo, I believe we will start to see more happen in DT Oceanside, as I understand the height limit allows buildings up to somewhere around 120 ft. This is partially illustrated by the 8 story hotel proposal there.

On the flip-side, I would also like t see density in Nat'l City, as it also has lenient height limits, as borders transit lines.

spoonman Aug 14, 2014 2:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6690440)
right on que. NoCo is plenty dense and only getting denser. this is the only link between us and LA/OC. wait why am I explaining this to you. This is why I had the disclaimer in my last post. some posters here have the most density without room for development.

As someone that travels from OC to SD frequently, I can say that one of the biggest Achilles heels on the corridor is the logistical issues with train service.
  1. Amtrak serves the route from early morning till late at night, but is very expensive.
  2. The Coaster serves DT SD to DT Oceanside, is cheap, and has pretty wide hours.
  3. The Metrolink Serves DT LA to DT Oceanside, is cheap, but does not run past about 7 or 8pm

The problems are basically the lack of overlap and hours. If you want to save money, you can take the Metrolink, then txfr to the Coaster. This is a little annoying, but works and is cheap. The problem is if you are from OC/LA and want to go downtown or somewhere late, you are basically stuck driving unless you want to pay $50pp to Amtrak.

A while back I read about Coaster and Metrolink working together to combne services to provide a "single seat ride". Assuming this would also improve hours, this would help take a lot of weekend and weekday traffic off the 5.

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 2:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6687173)
It seems as if you're only talking about new development and not redevelopment. We are talking about the next 50 years right? When I look at space like that, I see a much different San Diego.

Take for example the UTC Mall. Today, you have a nice mall in a sea of parking lots. In the future, I see towers on top of parking ramps that line both Genesee and La Jolla Village Drive.

Then I look at the apartment communities in UTC. They are nice and they are dense..at least to San Diego standards...but they can also be rebuilt. A lot of those communities are already 20+ years old. Do you think they were built to last another 50 years? I don't.

There is opportunity to redevelop. It's not ideal but it's there.

I mean development in any form, either new or redeveloped. UTC mall already has a development map laid out, they're starting phase two as we type, and while it includes new housing, it's not as significant as it could have been. I will say that while the community in UTC may not be accepting of towers now, that could change in the future. It's just unlikely, and assuming otherwise isn't being realistic about the situation at hand.

I could hope and fantasize that other areas in SD will up density, but that's not coming up with actual solutions.

Quote:

Yes. You have 6 blocks going East but you also have 7 blocks going North. What I envision is each of those 42 blocks looking like 15th and Island. But this is just the EV. Then you have the A and Ash street corridors, which are severely underdeveloped. After that it's the Park Blvd corridor.

Once you fill those in, you can then look at redeveloping all of the 1-4 story structures. If you don't see the opportunity to redevelop these types of structures...we're never going to see the same page.
You might "envision" a sea of Pinnacle-type developments, but many of those blocks north of the bus yard are parts of city college, future green space, or already have redevelopment plans listed for them (namely the idea district and makers quarter, which from what I've seen aren't anywhere near 15th and Island in scale).

Dreaming big is fine, but it's not what's actually happening.

Quote:

What's wrong with having a 'sports district' being downtown for the next 50 years? Other cities are trying everything they can to try and bring stadiums downtown because of the awful results of putting them out on the edge. San Diego needs to learn from those mistakes.

It's not like the stadium would be empty all of the time. People like to say it's just for 8 NFL games a year but that's false. Especially considering that it's San Diego and the weather allows for year round stuff.
Mission Valley isn't out on the edge, but in the center of the city. Chula Vista is 20 minutes south of downtown SD. And considering the sizable market for the Chargers in OC and LA (up to 40% of season ticket holders hail from the mega region up north), even Oside isn't out on the edge.

Ideally, the stadium site would be in MV. It has easy freeway access and trolley connections. It's been designated for this land-use, making the hassle of rezoning downtown and MV not an issue.

I'm sure the stadium could be used for other events, but it's not going to provide a wide range of options. Football, monster trucks, bmx, maybe soccer, or random rugby or international sports events. There won't be a massive parking lot for the giant used car tent sale anymore (tragedy). Eh. In the end, I'm not sure a stadium is the best use for this land.

Quote:

Power shifts.

We're talking about a San Diego in the future right? A San Diego populated by millennials who don't purchase large homes and want to live a different lifestyle than what a lot of the current population wants.

They are talking about a growth of 1 Million people by 2030. That's enough of a shift to push the NIMBYs from power.

At least you and I agree that the mindset of these folks who are anti-density is wrong. Where we don't agree is the ability to eventually take the power away from them. So there is that.
We agree that these folks are wrong, but I don't see their sentiments simply being set aside in favor of new urbanism. Why? Because they're the ones setting the agenda for the next 30+ years in the community plan updates and they have the state (via-CEQA) supporting their NIMBYism through threats of lawsuits and regulatory actions. San Diego won't shift quickly, or even moderately on this issue. Property is too valuable to people here to just let things change dramatically or timidly, even when we desperately need it to.

Quote:

We agree on this. We just don't agree on the solution.

I think a stadium adds to the overall experience of (and I dislike this phrase) live/work/play downtown. Make no mistake that the ballpark is a key factor for Sempra.

The best way I see to get some of the first ring communities to want to connect to DT via smart transit is to make it the most diverse community possible. Since these folks already have housing..it's employment, shopping, arts, dining and entertainment that are going to be selling factors for them.

When you have to drive to DT to see the Padres, Drive to Mission Valley (or your suggestion Temecula) to see the Charger, Drive to Fashion Valley to shop...when you have to drive all over San Diego to get some of the things you want...you want to stay car centric.
The stadium would be a plus on game day, but it's not a ballpark with dozens of games a season. And, yes, the ballpark may have been an added benefit for Sempra, but having a state-of-the-art office tower located near the gaslamp, and a workplace attractive to younger workers (ie in an urban area), along with an eager developer willing to accommodate their every need probably had 90% more to do with it than signage over PETCO. It was just a plus.

And you can take the Coaster, trolley or Rapid bus to downtown, and the trolley or local buses to Mission Valley or Fashion Valley. It's not efficient but you don't have to drive. A downtown stadium doesn't mean people will be any more or any less willing to take transit in the region - that has more to do with our transit system in general. People don't ride the subway in New York because Yankee Stadium is on the line, they ride it because it's efficient.

Quote:

I disagree in part. The EV will grow regardless..that we agree upon. However, EV would grow UP more if their was a stadium. Take a look at the height directly around Petco and then consider how it goes down the farther you get. Obviously that's not all due to Petco but it has a lot to do with it.
A few towers might spring up around a new stadium, but that doesn't take away the fact that the stadium ate up blocks and blocks and blocks from mixed-use housing and workplaces.If development in EV will happen with or without a stadium, why eat up land if it's going to happen anyways? 15th and Island isn't the direct result of PETCO, in fact it's right next to a homeless encampment. If it didn't need a stadium to come around and it's developers were willing to risk their money on further gentrification in the area, why assume only a stadium could result in more high-density development?

Quote:

We both agree on High Density. Where we disagree is on the tools to create that. My personal opinion is that a Stadium would essentially deliver high rises in the near future for the blocks surrounding the stadium. Without the stadium, you would get some but you would also have several 3-5 story complexes.
They would deliver high-rises in the near future but that doesn't mean they won't come in the long term, which we both keep stressing. Meanwhile those short term gains would come from land being locked out of development for an even longer period of time.

Quote:

We both agree that 3-5 story complexes are bad overall for the future.
Agreed.

Quote:

See the previous comment. Again, we both agree that DT needs to go UP and it needs to a mix of everything. That said, the main focus IMHO should be to get more people working downtown.

What we disagree on is the best way to accomplish this.

Look at the office development in the EV. It's all based on views of Petco. Now look at the stadium plan. The stadium would create the opportunity on 7-10 blocks, DIRECTLY off the 5 and walking distance to Mass Transit for office towers...all with AMAZING views of the stadium. That's the opportunity here. A game changer IMHO.

Without the stadium, there is no 'beacon' drawing people to this section of DT. Instead, you're just looking at parcels that are on the outside radius from other drawing points.

Agree to disagree I suppose.
I agree to disagree. I think the office to stadium argument is overstated, and that views of a football stadium are different than regular PETCO. It's more of a novelty really, and much less of a game changer.

The EV doesn't need a "beacon," it needs smart land-use decisions, which it already does and doesn't need to be changed. The EV is not that big, I can walk from Golden Hill to City College in 15 minutes, and from City College to the library in 20. And that's just walking, it's even faster by bus or car! There doesn't need to be a draw when the area already has other "draws" so close by, and when there are new projects already going on (again, Makers, IDEA, EVG, etc.).

But, again, difference of opinion.

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 2:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6690440)
right on que. NoCo is plenty dense and only getting denser. this is the only link between us and LA/OC. wait why am I explaining this to you. This is why I had the disclaimer in my last post. some posters here have the most density without room for development.

This isn't even a response to my point, which is you're not getting what you want anyways.

Haha! This whole project is for carpools, transit riders, bicyclists, and environmentalists and their lagoons. This won't benefit single occupancy vehicles at all, unless they carpool, take transit, bike ride, ...

So victory for cars? Not at all.

spoonman Aug 14, 2014 2:24 AM

^ Give it a rest, guys. I think everyone has met in the middle as much as possible. Nobody is changing their minds as this point Let's move on. Lots of development happening right under our noses. :cheers:

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6690460)
Is it even reasonable to say mass transit is a viable solution when you're talking about North County? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and would support it but is it even possible when all things are considered?

The current main rail line runs along the cost, which pretty much kills any opportunity to build density around each station. Which is sad.

I think better land use and creating more 'centers' around the region is the key. It also seems more feasible to me.

Coastal North County is the worst in terms of development restrictions and in terms of maintaining low-density development models.

What I am hopeful for is what people like my father do, which is drive to Coaster stations and ride down to the city. It's not a complete adoption of transit, but it does take thousands of cars off the road, and many more would come if we had more frequent service and double tracking (which is set to happen).

As for creating better land-use and more centers, that's definitely needed. North City and downtown Oside have a lot of potential. The Sprinter is already in place, so that will help inland development. But more freeway construction isn't going to happen (no room, or desire from state and regional planners), so the 5 will always be a parking lot for single occupancy drivers.

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 2:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6690497)
^ Give it a rest, guys. I think everyone has met in the middle as much as possible. Nobody is changing their minds as this point Let's move on. Lots of development happening right under our noses. :cheers:

:swordfight:

tdavis Aug 14, 2014 3:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6690506)
:swordfight:

Ditto! I've stopped coming to this site cause I'm tired of all the bickering. If you want to go back and forth private message each other.

spoonman Aug 14, 2014 4:23 AM

Photos of LA Jolla Centre topped out

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=xn4UwBJb

http://www.examiner.com/node/73339386

spoonman Aug 14, 2014 5:34 AM

New residential development at corner of Aero Drive and Sandrock, at the entrance to Montgomery Field. Replaces industrial and low rise office. No idea what the finished product will look like.

http://www.examiner.com/article/home...-field-airport

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=-JfVUAjU

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6690597)

Uhhhhhhh why couldn't this be two floors taller? *cries*

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdavis (Post 6690539)
Ditto! I've stopped coming to this site cause I'm tired of all the bickering. If you want to go back and forth private message each other.

:violin:

SDfan Aug 14, 2014 5:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6690654)
New residential development at corner of Aero Drive and Sandrock, at the entrance to Montgomery Field. Replaces industrial and low rise office. No idea what the finished product will look like.

http://www.examiner.com/article/home...-field-airport

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=-JfVUAjU

I read somewhere about people complaining about this project. Don't care why, but I have no idea what project this is.

Northparkwizard Aug 14, 2014 6:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6690664)
I read somewhere about people complaining about this project. Don't care why, but I have no idea what project this is.

It's a development project in Metro San Diego that's happening without your knowledge, let the grand debate begin!

(tongue firmly planted in cheek)

insert emoji

eburress Aug 14, 2014 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6690654)
New residential development at corner of Aero Drive and Sandrock, at the entrance to Montgomery Field. Replaces industrial and low rise office. No idea what the finished product will look like.

http://www.examiner.com/article/home...-field-airport

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=-JfVUAjU

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it'll be heavy on the stucco. :)

Streamliner Aug 14, 2014 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6691006)
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it'll be heavy on the stucco. :)

There is a similarly large project going up in Mira Mesa, it's pretty massive. And it is definitely heavy on the stucco.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:52 PM.

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