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)

Leo the Dog Apr 15, 2014 4:01 PM

What would 6 Californias looks like
 
Pretty intersting snapshot of California's demographics broken down on the "6 Californias".

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...x_Californias/

tyleraf Apr 15, 2014 5:02 PM

I would love this to actually happen. It would be better for us as a city to be separated from San Francisco's and Los Angeles' interests.

Northparkwizard Apr 15, 2014 7:12 PM

That's just a wacky idea from the right to gain more electoral votes for the GOP, not going to happen.

Dale Apr 15, 2014 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6540808)
That's just a wacky idea from the right to gain more electoral votes for the GOP, not going to happen.

Read much ?

ozone Apr 15, 2014 8:14 PM

Oh god it's another dumb attempt to break up the state. Clearly Tim Draper does not have a firm grasp of state's socioeconomic and geopolitical realities. This guy was born into a family of privilege and position with a history of being involved in social engineering issues along with venture capital.

Dividing up the state would most likely end up sending more Democrats to Washington than Republicans- even if the San Joaquin Valley and South California (sans LA) were dominated by Republicans (as they are now). I do not think San Diego would actually benefit that much. Certainly the San Joaquin Valley and far north would not fair well. And just think of our state's enormous water system and how that would be affected.

His argument that California is too big to be governed is absurd. Italy is about the size of California. As it is, major subdivisions already function somewhat independent of Sacramento. Still despite libertarian's utopian fantasies the best run governments balance centralized planning with localized implementation. I think we could decentralize some top-down agencies but over all I think we have a balanced system, especially compared to many of the other states.

We have much more to gain as a strong unified state that a bunch of smaller, less influential ones.

Dale Apr 15, 2014 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6540909)
Oh god it's another dumb attempt to break up the state. Clearly Tim Draper does not have a firm grasp of state's socioeconomic and geopolitical realities. This guy was born into a family of privilege and position with a history of being involved in social engineering issues along with venture capital.

Dividing up the state would most likely end up sending more Democrats to Washington than Republicans- even if the San Joaquin Valley and South California (sans LA) were dominated by Republicans (as they are now). I do not think San Diego would actually benefit that much. Certainly the San Joaquin Valley and far north would not fair well. And just think of our state's enormous water system and how that would be affected.

His argument that California is too big to be governed is absurd. Italy is about the size of California. As it is, major subdivisions already function somewhat independent of Sacramento. Still despite libertarian's utopian fantasies the best run governments balance centralized planning with localized implementation. I think we could decentralize some top-down agencies but over all I think we have a balanced system, especially compared to many of the other states.

We have much more to gain as a strong unified state that a bunch of smaller, less influential ones.

Hehe, using Italy as a prime example of sound governance. Love your wry sense of humor!

ozone Apr 15, 2014 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale (Post 6540942)
Hehe, using Italy as a prime example of sound governance. Love your wry sense of humor!

:D But seriously. The theory is that smaller states would be more manageable and therefore better run. I do not see the evidence for this.

Dale Apr 15, 2014 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6540961)
:D But seriously. The theory is that smaller states would be more manageable and therefore better run. I do not see the evidence for this.

Do you believe the US would be better governed if it were just one state ? Do you believe that Norway and Sweden and Portugal and Spain should reunite ?

I do want to say that I appreciate your ability to discuss this in a calm manner.

ozone Apr 15, 2014 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale (Post 6541007)
Do you believe the US would be better governed if it were just one state ? Do you believe that Norway and Sweden and Portugal and Spain should reunite ?

I do want to say that I appreciate your ability to discuss this in a calm manner.

Oh I agree that scale can be an issue. I would not say that bigger is better any more than I would suggest smaller is inherently better. There's plenty examples of smaller states/nations which are run very poorly. But of course there are other factors like social cohesion and economics. The USA's population is too large and socially fragmented so no the US wouldn't work as a single state.

I just reject the argument that California is unmanageable and question the motives of some people who promote this fallacy. Of course we can and should do better. And some things that are now directed at the state level should be left to local control. However, local governments found out the hard during the recent fiscal crisis that programs cost money and when they were force to fund these programs without the help of the state they couldn't. What is true of the nation as a whole is true of California. The wealthier counties/states help subsidize the less well off ones. That is why I wouldn't so quick to split the state up. I suspect that the people would not benefit as much as the special interests and political bottom-feeders.

Dale Apr 15, 2014 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6541152)
Oh I agree that scale can be an issue. I would not say that bigger is better any more than I would suggest smaller is inherently better. There's plenty examples of smaller states/nations which are run very poorly. But of course there are other factors like social cohesion and economics. The USA's population is too large and socially fragmented so no the US wouldn't work as a single state.

I just reject the argument that California is unmanageable and question the motives of some people who promote this fallacy. Of course we can and should do better. And some things that are now directed at the state level should be left to local control. However, local governments found out the hard during the recent fiscal crisis that programs cost money and when they were force to fund these programs without the help of the state they couldn't. What is true of the nation as a whole is true of California. The wealthier counties/states help subsidize the less well off ones. That is why I wouldn't so quick to split the state up. I suspect that the people would not benefit as much as the special interests and political bottom-feeders.

We definitely agree on the room for improvement. And I agree that the bottom-feeders will naturally oppose any initiatives that force them to, well, take initiative. I would hasten to add that Draper is not a Republican, at least not at last check.

Northparkwizard Apr 16, 2014 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale (Post 6540831)
Read much ?

It's risky to engage a well thought out comment like your rectorial question, so I'll just point out that this subject is far from being a new one, here's an article about proposing a split from 2011 and here's one from last century. It was a silly idea then and it's a silly idea now, no matter who's proposing it.

Dale Apr 16, 2014 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6541400)
It's risky to engage a well thought out comment like your rectorial question, so I'll just point out that this subject is far from being a new one, here's an article about proposing a split from 2011 and here's one from last century. It was a silly idea then and it's a silly idea now, no matter who's proposing it.

Oh no, mine was an earnest question. I was just interested to know why a Democrat, now unaffiliated, had managed to get pressed into service to steal votes for the Republicans.*

*sarcasm*

SDCAL Apr 16, 2014 2:46 AM

SD County as our own state.

Who would govern us, the County Board of Supervisors? They can't even handle a bad wildfire season. San Diego, both city and county, have more registered Dems than Repugs and Latinos and Asians are amongst our fastest growing groups. Yet, the county board of supervisors are all white Republicans. Not to mention, one of them - Mr. Horn - has been embroiled in many scandals. They are so homogenous I believe every one of them also went to SDSU.

They draw up their own districts and fight against term limits to keep themselves around like dinosaurs.

That's just one of MANY problems I could see if we were our own state - non-representative backwards local politicians.

If SD wasn't part of CA, we would be a backwards cesspool (Alabama on the Pacific??) and I would sell my condo downtown and move, most likely to LA.

Ok, now that the fantasy talk is over, can we get back to talking about projects? ;)

Northparkwizard Apr 16, 2014 3:21 AM

I thought there was a proposed public park at 13th and G street awhile back. Is that still in the works? I mention it because of the new school going in on 14th, that's a good combination of school and park. The only thing that's a little scary is that it borders the two feeder streets (G and F) for the 94 and I know how fast traffic moves on those two.

I used to work in the old brick building at 13th and G in the 90's next to the Urban Corps. It was sad to see them scrape that building so fast with no immediate plans for replacement.

Leo the Dog Apr 16, 2014 5:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6540961)
:D But seriously. The theory is that smaller states would be more manageable and therefore better run. I do not see the evidence for this.

I'm not exactly for this, but it's interesting to think about.

"South CA" would have a population around 11 million. It would rank as the 7th or 8th most populous state. Not exactly small. Many successful states are small in area and much smaller in population. Ie: Massachusetts 6.5M.

I think this would actually increase Dems in Congress.

Imagine if SD didn't have to listen to the CA coastal commission and all the other regulations from Sacramento that limit development and create artificially high rents...

ozone Apr 16, 2014 8:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6541715)
Imagine if SD didn't have to listen to the CA coastal commission and all the other regulations from Sacramento that limit development and create artificially high rents...

Actually the Coastal Commission is headquartered in San Francisco with district offices up and down the coast. This is not a Sacramento-lead commission. Even if you got rid of some of the regulations you'd still have a hell of time with the local NIMBYs.

SDfan Apr 16, 2014 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6541787)
Actually the Coastal Commission is headquartered in San Francisco with district offices up and down the coast. This is not a Sacramento-lead commission. Even if you got rid of some of the regulations you'd still have a hell of time with the local NIMBYs.

Regardless where the commission is headquartered, it's a California State institution, i.e. developed, legislated, and authorized by Sacramento bureaucrats.

And agreed. NIMBY's won't go away with a dissolution of California.

But not to worry, it's not going to happen. California enjoys its influence over Washington by it's sheer size. Local governments could function better with a reformed state government, they don't need an entire redrawing of the west coast.

SDfan Apr 16, 2014 9:17 PM

I don't know about you guys, but this North City project came out of nowhere for me. The first link is a promotional video with a lot of renderings. The second link is the master plan website for the project.

http://www.northcityoffice.com/

http://www.northcity.co/#/home

mello Apr 17, 2014 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6542763)
I don't know about you guys, but this North City project came out of nowhere for me. The first link is a promotional video with a lot of renderings. The second link is the master plan website for the project.

http://www.northcityoffice.com/

http://www.northcity.co/#/home

Yep San Marcos is actually very pro development kind of like a burgeoning "Irvine of the Future" for North County. Too bad this is in their dreams. Where is the demand for the office space going to come from. Hundreds of acres of graded land lay a few miles to the west of this site off of Palomar Airport road and hardly any commercial space has gone in there over the last 8 years or so....

I love the ambition I just see it taking a long time to get built out. Just to the west of this is also a large "San Marcos Creek District" proposal that has been around for ten years and still nothing has gotten going. My mom lives tucked up against the hills in Lake San Marcos and this would be great for her property values.

--- I would recommend you guys to check out the trails on top of the hills that the San Elijo developers put in, on a clear day the views are stunning kind of like a Mt. Soledad for North County because you can drive to the top of Double Peak and its 1700 feet. I go walking up there all the time :tup:

San Marcos Creek District update: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...nt-ready-flow/

spoonman Apr 17, 2014 5:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6543210)
Yep San Marcos is actually very pro development kind of like a burgeoning "Irvine of the Future" for North County. Too bad this is in their dreams. Where is the demand for the office space going to come from. Hundreds of acres of graded land lay a few miles to the west of this site off of Palomar Airport road and hardly any commercial space has gone in there over the last 8 years or so....

I love the ambition I just see it taking a long time to get built out. Just to the west of this is also a large "San Marcos Creek District" proposal that has been around for ten years and still nothing has gotten going. My mom lives tucked up against the hills in Lake San Marcos and this would be great for her property values.

--- I would recommend you guys to check out the trails on top of the hills that the San Elijo developers put in, on a clear day the views are stunning kind of like a Mt. Soledad for North County because you can drive to the top of Double Peak and its 1700 feet. I go walking up there all the time :tup:

San Marcos Creek District update: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...nt-ready-flow/

Some valid points, but I think this won't be that big of an issue. The offices would be Class A space located next to a major university, light rail, and would include a host of amenities, not to mention freeway access and proximity to the coast.

I could easily see this becoming the IDEA District of North County (or as close as North County could get). I could see "hip" employers moving over from Carlsbad, while the boss-man can still live closeby in his McMansion in San Elijo or wherever.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:57 PM.

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