[HurricaneHugo]

Am I missing something...what's new (or news) about this? We had an idea of the project's scale already. Is the project any more likely to happen now than before?

Well wasn't there some uncertainty whether the project was going to go forward?

[sandiego_urban]

Hey, 2 new forumers in the last couple of days - Welcome!



I am not trying to argue the value of developing the current East Village site for civic uses but I do question the need for an expensive new library.
I think you'd change your opinion if you were ever to go into a new, state-of-the-art library in another city. Even the one in Phoenix had plenty of people in it when I was there, and I'm not talking about homeless or elderly people either. When the library branch in Mission Valley stayed open till 10:00pm, it would be packed until closing.

IMO, a new library is just what East Village needs to add more vibrancy to the streets. It already has condos, an office tower, restaurants, a park, a ballpark, the trolley runs through it, and it seems to be the only thing missing ;) I'd much rather have something open to the public situated on the site instead of another condo project.

Here's an old rendering of Ballpark Village which shows the future Marriott site on the bottom. To the right of it (the white buildings) is the Transportation Center.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Jaygergon/downtown%20development/ballparkvill.bmp

If the position of the new Marriott towers remain the same, check out how one tower would be situated almost perfectly behind home plate. They's be smart to include a rooftop lounge so people can watch the game from there. Although from 500' up, the people may look more like ants than players. ;)

[eburress]

Well wasn't there some uncertainty whether the project was going to go forward?

There was a lot of uncertainty (just like Cosmo, Library Tower, and the rest of our proposed projects), but I didn't see anything that indicated the project was any more likely to happen than before. It's been "proposed" for some time.

[mello]

^^^ Nah man "its gunna happen" *cracks knuckles*

San Diego Urban: You are right that would be the ultimate rooftop deck, you would still be able to tell what is going on from that high up. And that would be a huge attraction for sheezy. Damn just imagine how sick the skyline will be with these towers.... Oh yeah East Village comin up!

[sandiegodweller]

Well wasn't there some uncertainty whether the project was going to go forward?
The uncertainty lies in the residential developer. Lennar disbanded their San Diego Urban Division so I doubt that they are still involved.

[sandiegodweller]

Hey, 2 new forumers in the last couple of days - Welcome!




I think you'd change your opinion if you were ever to go into a new, state-of-the-art library in another city. Even the one in Phoenix had plenty of people in it when I was there, and I'm not talking about homeless or elderly people either. When the library branch in Mission Valley stayed open till 10:00pm, it would be packed until closing.

IMO, a new library is just what East Village needs to add more vibrancy to the streets. It already has condos, an office tower, restaurants, a park, a ballpark, the trolley runs through it, and it seems to be the only thing missing ;) I'd much rather have something open to the public situated on the site instead of another condo project.



If the position of the new Marriott towers remain the same, check out how one tower would be situated almost perfectly behind home plate. They's be smart to include a rooftop lounge so people can watch the game from there. Although from 500' up, the people may look more like ants than players. ;)
Maybe they can put a Super Wal*Mart on the first few stories to help pay for the new library.

[spoonman]

I have more information...

I have a link to the Marriott's Project Application with the city. It mentions that the towers will be at opposite ends of the site, as seen in the old renderings. Also it vaguely mentions the towers looking somewhat different, although I personally believe they will still look like twins from a distance.

Here's the link:

http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/Ballpark%20Village%20Project%20%20Application_Marriott.pdf

[spoonman]

Here are blueprints of the towers too
http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/Marriott%20Convention%20Hotel%20Blueprints%20(206%20KB).pdf

[SDCAL]

so I guess it will be another regular Marriott, not a JW marriott or anything? The plans just say "Marriott Convention Hotel"

I really hope they decide on a JW to set it apart, we have too many Marriott's already

[sandiego_urban]

^^Well, not necessarily. They could just be calling it that now, and branding it a different name later on. I'd like to see them make each tower a different hotel, but I don't think that will happen.

...and speaking of towers, those blueprints make it look like another set of rectangular-shaped twin towers. :( We can only hope that it's just a preliminary design.

[spoonman]

so I guess it will be another regular Marriott, not a JW marriott or anything? The plans just say "Marriott Convention Hotel"

I really hope they decide on a JW to set it apart, we have too many Marriott's already


I agree! I'd like to see it have some technical distinction. The good news though is that from what I read, Marriott wants to make it the premier convention center hotel, which would indicate that it will at least be as nice as the Manchester Grand. The only problem with making it a luxury hotel is the size. At close to 1700 rooms, that would be very difficult to support in most cities.

[bushman61988]

I agree! I'd like to see it have some technical distinction. The good news though is that from what I read, Marriott wants to make it the premier convention center hotel, which would indicate that it will at least be as nice as the Manchester Grand.

Yea, another twin tower type building would be awful! can you imagine, the whole skyline viewed from the waterfront at every, you would seem twin towers...the Grande, Harborview, Horizons, the Beautiful blue marriott.

"At least be as nice as the Manchester Grand"? Regarding the architecture? Because if they mean the architecture of the new Marriott would be at least as nice as Manchester, then that's definitely not saying much...

[visionary]

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.projectDetail&propertyID=635

[spoonman]

:previous: :shrug:

[DowntownSDJoe]

visionary??whats new about that, we have already seen it.....do you think that this project will actually get started this year??? isnt that taco shop still there

[bmfarley]

visionary??whats new about that, we have already seen it.....do you think that this project will actually get started this year??? isnt that taco shop still thereWell, I noticed that the project page was updated. Note the new nate; July 12, 2007.

[SDCAL]

that project, along with half the things on the CCDC site say the project will start in "late 2007". Cosmo square and library tower are among the others, and we know those keep getting pushed-out

I would like to know how CCDC determines what start timeframes to put on these projects???? I am starting to get the impression they just list random timeframes for projects that are stalled to try to keep the interest and make their site look updated. It is VERY annoying, though, because it gives hope that the projects will start and then they don't. If the project is on hold they should just say "on-hold" or "construction dates unknown"

Cosmo Square is a perfect example. Since the beginning of the year it said it would start constuctions in "Spring '07", so March April and May I would walk by each week looking for any signs of activitiy and nothing. Now Cosmo says "Late 2007" start on the CCDC website and I am wondering if there is any credibility to that or if their update at the end of 2007 will assign some other random date.

I can only hope the mulitude of things that say they will start late 2007 actually get started and I hope CCDC isn't just using random phantom dates on their site :brickwall:

[keg92101]

that project, along with half the things on the CCDC site say the project will start in "late 2007". Cosmo square and library tower are among the others, and we know those keep getting pushed-out

I would like to know how CCDC determines what start timeframes to put on these projects???? I am starting to get the impression they just list random timeframes for projects that are stalled to try to keep the interest and make their site look updated. It is VERY annoying, though, because it gives hope that the projects will start and then they don't. If the project is on hold they should just say "on-hold" or "construction dates unknown"

Cosmo Square is a perfect example. Since the beginning of the year it said it would start constuctions in "Spring '07", so March April and May I would walk by each week looking for any signs of activitiy and nothing. Now Cosmo says "Late 2007" start on the CCDC website and I am wondering if there is any credibility to that or if their update at the end of 2007 will assign some other random date.

I can only hope the mulitude of things that say they will start late 2007 actually get started and I hope CCDC isn't just using random phantom dates on their site :brickwall:

If you go back a few pages on this thread, someone informed us that the Cosmo site is being "quitely shopped", meaning the developers are trying to unload the site. I honestly doubt any new residential projects in the East Village will start over the next year and a half. However, Hotel Indigo will break ground at the end of this year, the Marriott Residence Inn has recently broken ground, as has the affordable housing portion of Ballpark Village (16th & Market). The only residential project that could start over the next year and a half would be the 7th & Market site, and that is only because the Related Companies has so much cash, they can get financing when others cannot. I am more excited, living in the area, about more and more retail coming to the area.

http://eastvillagesandiego.blogspot.com/

[mongoXZ]

Even if this is true or not about Cosmo Square then I think the lot would be developed at the earliest part of the next building cycle. It's too prominent of a site (next to the ballpark, gaslamp) to not get built on for a long period of time.

[bmfarley]

that project, along with half the things on the CCDC site say the project will start in "late 2007". Cosmo square and library tower are among the others, and we know those keep getting pushed-out

I would like to know how CCDC determines what start timeframes to put on these projects???? I am starting to get the impression they just list random timeframes for projects that are stalled to try to keep the interest and make their site look updated. It is VERY annoying, though, because it gives hope that the projects will start and then they don't. If the project is on hold they should just say "on-hold" or "construction dates unknown"

Cosmo Square is a perfect example. Since the beginning of the year it said it would start constuctions in "Spring '07", so March April and May I would walk by each week looking for any signs of activitiy and nothing. Now Cosmo says "Late 2007" start on the CCDC website and I am wondering if there is any credibility to that or if their update at the end of 2007 will assign some other random date.

I can only hope the mulitude of things that say they will start late 2007 actually get started and I hope CCDC isn't just using random phantom dates on their site :brickwall:Yeah, I noticed that too about the CCDC project listings. And, the project description for the above linked project by visionary.... didn't look any different than when i reviewed it a week or two prior. Just the update date looked .... well, updated. It's a nice looking building tho... hope it gets built.

Onto First & J.... I could have sworn someone wrote that the Marriot at that location had finally started construction. Is that true? because I thought I walked by the site yesterday and saw zero activity had occurred. Do I have the location incorrect? Is there a web cam on the spot?

[Derek]

First and J is a parking lot right now, and a condo tower is supposed to be built there. I think your location is wrong.

[Marina_Guy]

If you go back a few pages on this thread, someone informed us that the Cosmo site is being "quitely shopped", meaning the developers are trying to unload the site. .....

http://eastvillagesandiego.blogspot.com/

Cosmo Square is to be auctioned in late July Early August. Notice of Default has been filed. Such a shame.

[Derek]

That's a shame.

[SDCAL]

that is a shame :( and proof that the status updates on the ccdc website are unreliable

hopefully whoever buys the site will do something similar to cosmo square, the renderings looked good

is library tower in the same boat??

[WonderlandPark]

Cosmo Square was one of my favorite proposals, something different and contemporary. :(

by the way, did the new Courts building by Meier start yet?

[Derek]

The new courthouse is just a big hole right now, and has been for a long time.

[Derek]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=134463

[bmfarley]

I missed this one... the CCDC website indicates that this project web page was update 7/11....

Hotel Indigo (9th & Island... NE corner)
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/061027_CCDC.jpg

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.projectDetail&propertyID=557

[mongoXZ]

here's another new image i found in the CCDC projects section. . .10th & B


http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/10th&B%20%20%20C17.jpg

North side of B Street, between 10th and 11th avenues

A mixed-use project with 223 residential units, to include 215 price-restricted apartments and 8 market rate condominiums, and approximately 14,000 square feet of retail space on the north side of B Street, between Tenth and Eleventh avenues. No construction schedule has been determined.

Or was it already posted here before?

[mongoXZ]

And yet more new images from CCDC. . . .

Loft 32
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/Lofts%2032-E64_Web.jpg
Southeast corner of 17th Street and Imperial Avenue

Bankers Capital Development Corporation plans to develop a 3-story building with 32 condominiums at the southeast corner of 17th Street and Imperial Avenue. Construction is scheduled to begin in late 2007 with completion targeted for spring 2009.


15th & Market
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/15+Mkt_rendering_72.jpg
648 15th Street

Lankford Associates are planning to construct a 22-story mixed-use project at 648 15th Street, the west side of 15th Street between Market and G streets. The project will contain 274 condominiums, 455 parking spaces, 371,000 square feet of residential space and approximately 25,00 square feet of retail space. Construction is scheduled to begin late 2007 with completion targeted for late 2009.


Studio 15
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/Studio%2015.jpg
Housing Development Partners plan to build 275 affordable-residential units in a five story building located at the southwest corner of 15th Street and Imperial Avenue.

[HurricaneHugo]

nice

[Derek]

I want to see 15th and Island get off the ground.

[sandiegodweller]

The new courthouse is just a big hole right now, and has been for a long time.
Cost overuns in the planning stage. If I remember correctly, the bid went out and every bidder came in over the budgeted number.

[sandiegodweller]

Cosmo Square is to be auctioned in late July Early August. Notice of Default has been filed. Such a shame.
Where did you get the info on the foreclosure? I want to get some details. Thanks.

[Red UM Rebel]

Sorry guys if this is already in the thread. A friend came in from San Diego and said a Hard Rock Hotel was opening up there. I checked the website and saw it was true. Is Hard Rock building its own building or renovating some other building. Thanks!

[sandiegodweller]

Sorry guys if this is already in the thread. A friend came in from San Diego and said a Hard Rock Hotel was opening up there. I checked the website and saw it was true. Is Hard Rock building its own building or renovating some other building. Thanks!
Tarsidia Hotels is almost complete with the construction of a new, 420 room Hard Rock condo/hotel on 5th Avenue and K Street at the entrance to the Gaslamp Quarter.

I don't know if the current Hard Rock Cafe is going to move to the new location. It is a different ownership group and I don't know how long their lease is.

[Red UM Rebel]

Thanks!

[dl3000]

I think its a completely new building.

Interesting news about airport stuff, very far fetched though, I doubt this claim will go without complaint because it is a bit ridiculous, if the dude wants space for an airport, he'd only claim space for the airport and a little vicinity. This seems like a joke.

Floating Airport Proposal Takes Flight

POSTED: 5:51 pm PDT July 16, 2007
UPDATED: 6:33 pm PDT July 16, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
SAN DIEGO -- Could an offshore airport be in San Diego's future? A local businessman took the first step Monday in his quest to bring an offshore alternative to Lindbergh Field.

Images: Floating Airport Proposal Takes Flight
Watch Video

Adam Englund, an Encinitas attorney and CEO of Ocean Works Development, sent certified letters to federal, state and local government agencies, notifying them that he is staking claim on a 40,000-square-mile area of the Pacific Ocean. The area in the claim covers Point Conception in the north to the Mexican border in the south, from three miles off the coast to the Continental Shelf to the west.
Adblock


According to Englund, his design is unprecedented. The airport would be located ten miles off the coast of Point Loma. It would be secured to the ocean floor and could be accessed by a 10-mile light-rail tunnel, built 1,200 feet under the water. The line would likely have its mainland opening at Lindbergh Field, Englund said.

Construction would take place in China and the airport would be towed across the ocean, then pieced together.

SURVEY
Should San Diego build an offshore airport?
Yes
No
Results | Disclaimer

Englund told NBC 7/39 he formed his corporation several years ago with the goal of building an offshore airport. His Web site contains an artist's rendition of his proposed idea.

He said he believes the planning for a new airport has been "shortsighted," and said when he is on the coast, he looks to the west and sees an airport on the horizon. He said claiming an area of the ocean for development is unprecedented.

"By making the claim we're giving notice out to everybody that we intend to go forward with this project -- on a realistic business-like basis. And if anyone has a problem, they should let us know now because we're going to be moving forward," Englund said.

Englund estimates the cost of his design at $20 billion.

Last year, voters rejected a proposal to relocate airport operations to MCAS Miramar. The Airport Authority has included the option of an offshore airport it its site relocation studies, but has not followed through to the extent that Englund has done.

Offshore airports are currently in use in Japan, which has five. However, their construction differs a bit from what Ocean Works Development is proposing, in that they all have an above-ground connection with the mainland.

Any challenges to Englund's claim need to filed in federal court by October 16.

Lindbergh Field has served as the region's main airport for nearly 80 years.

Copyright 2007 by NBCSandiego.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Derek]

The Hard Rock is an entirely new building.


The floating airport idea is crap. Seriously, Miramar is the only option for San Diego.

[Derek]

That would make sense to move the Hard Rock Cafe to the Hard Rock Condotel building as well.

[eburress]

One of the MANY problems with an airport in the freaking Pacific Ocean is that people don't want to "look to the west and see an airport on the horizon." That would be every NIMBYs worst nightmare.

The logistics of getting to the airport would be one of the deal-breakers for me. It would take a LOT of money to get my onto one of those light rail trains!

[Derek]

Like I said, Miramar is pretty much the only option. The international terminal or whatever is crap too, you are not getting me to go to the Tijuana airport of all places.

[keg92101]

That would make sense to move the Hard Rock Cafe to the Hard Rock Condotel building as well.

Not really. The Hard Rock Cafe is more of a tourist spot, where this is going to be a destination. Rande Gerber bar (Wiskey Bar, W Hotels) Nobu, and 4th floor pool deck.

[Red UM Rebel]

Not really. The Hard Rock Cafe is more of a tourist spot, where this is going to be a destination. Rande Gerber bar (Wiskey Bar, W Hotels) Nobu, and 4th floor pool deck.

Very true. They will not move the Hard Rock Cafe unless it is in a bad location. The Hard Rock Hotel in Chicago does have restaurants, but not a cafe. I would actually not be surprised at all if they did put in a nightclub/lounge done by Gerber Group. Gerber Group just put in a club/lounge in the new Hard Rock Hotel in Biloxi and commented that they enjoyed working with the atmosphere that HR produces.

[sandiegodweller]

!

[sandiegodweller]

If you go back a few pages on this thread, someone informed us that the Cosmo site is being "quitely shopped", meaning the developers are trying to unload the site. I honestly doubt any new residential projects in the East Village will start over the next year and a half. However, Hotel Indigo will break ground at the end of this year, the Marriott Residence Inn has recently broken ground, as has the affordable housing portion of Ballpark Village (16th & Market). The only residential project that could start over the next year and a half would be the 7th & Market site, and that is only because the Related Companies has so much cash, they can get financing when others cannot. I am more excited, living in the area, about more and more retail coming to the area.

http://eastvillagesandiego.blogspot.com/
I see that you have a blog for East Village. I want to start a blog/message board that would allow more interaction from the masses (similar to SDLookup.com). I want to have discussions about new retaurants and reviews, new leases/tenants, development rumors and general East Village living. Does anyone have a suggestion about a service that hosts something like this?

[ucsbgaucho]

I don't think an offshore airport would be THAT bad of an idea... And at 10 miles out, you wouldn't even be able to see it. It's not like it's going to be situated just outside the surf break. Catalina is 20 miles offshore, and it doesnt loom in the horizon when looking from LA. And I think you'd have a lot less problems convincing residents of an airport located 10 miles away where no planes would have to fly over any homes, vs Miramar which is less than 8 miles away from La Jolla and planes would be coming over that area dozens of times a day. Yes, Miramar is ideal, but when you might have to wait 10-20 years before even being able to CONSIDER that location, and then another 10-15 years of design, hearings, approvals, votes, and construction... something offshore looks enticing.

Plus, if you develop a BART-style connection with several trains running at the same time, even a marina next to the airport where the wealthier people can just take their yachts out to the airport, you wouldn't have a problem with access. You could set up a network of ferries too, leaving from say Encinitas, Mission Bay and Imperial Beach.... How cool would it be, if you weren't in a rush to reach a flight at the last minute, to take a boat out to the airport and cruise along the coast to get a great view along the way?!

I definitely think it's worth listening to and considering. San Diego is out of room for an airport the size that they really need. Without Miramar, you go east, or you go west. Going west is a lot closer.

[bushman61988]

I don't think an offshore airport would be THAT bad of an idea... And at 10 miles out, you wouldn't even be able to see it. It's not like it's going to be situated just outside the surf break. Catalina is 20 miles offshore, and it doesnt loom in the horizon when looking from LA. And I think you'd have a lot less problems convincing residents of an airport located 10 miles away where no planes would have to fly over any homes, vs Miramar which is less than 8 miles away from La Jolla and planes would be coming over that area dozens of times a day. Yes, Miramar is ideal, but when you might have to wait 10-20 years before even being able to CONSIDER that location, and then another 10-15 years of design, hearings, approvals, votes, and construction... something offshore looks enticing.

Plus, if you develop a BART-style connection with several trains running at the same time, even a marina next to the airport where the wealthier people can just take their yachts out to the airport, you wouldn't have a problem with access. You could set up a network of ferries too, leaving from say Encinitas, Mission Bay and Imperial Beach.... How cool would it be, if you weren't in a rush to reach a flight at the last minute, to take a boat out to the airport and cruise along the coast to get a great view along the way?!

I definitely think it's worth listening to and considering. San Diego is out of room for an airport the size that they really need. Without Miramar, you go east, or you go west. Going west is a lot closer.

I completely agree. U guys criticizing should at least give some more legit reasons for criticizing than calling it "crap". I think u guys should look at the positive aspects of it...i admit it would be kind of terrifying going under an underwater tunnel, especially when that tunnel is in the freakin Pacific Ocean, but i think they would also have ferries that take off from ports like downtown, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, Lindbergh Field, and Oceanside.

[sandiegodweller]

I completely agree. U guys criticizing should at least give some more legit reasons for criticizing than calling it "crap". I think u guys should look at the positive aspects of it...i admit it would be kind of terrifying going under an underwater tunnel, especially when that tunnel is in the freakin Pacific Ocean, but i think they would also have ferries that take off from ports like downtown, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, Lindbergh Field, and Oceanside.
This 10 mile offshore airport idea with underwater tunnels and ferry's is the most Rube Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg) thinking that I have heard yet.

Question: Say that I live in Fallbrook,Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Poway,etc. Why would I even consider flying into an offshore airport off of Point Loma? I would fly into Orange County or Ontairo.

If you have ever taken a ferry to Catalina from Long Beach (26 miles), it takes about 45 minutes (on the water). Add another 30 minutes to board on and off. Point Loma to Oceanside would take at least that amount of time. Who would fly into San Diego when it would take hours to get to shore?

Nevermind the fact that it would cost a family of 4 $100 bucks to ride the ferry.

Why don't we take the $20 billion and give it to Boeing. They can develop a plane that lands on water and then transforms into a ship that takes the passengers to shore. It has about the same chance of being successful.

[northbay]

I don't think an offshore airport would be THAT bad of an idea... And at 10 miles out, you wouldn't even be able to see it. It's not like it's going to be situated just outside the surf break. Catalina is 20 miles offshore, and it doesnt loom in the horizon when looking from LA. And I think you'd have a lot less problems convincing residents of an airport located 10 miles away where no planes would have to fly over any homes, vs Miramar which is less than 8 miles away from La Jolla and planes would be coming over that area dozens of times a day. Yes, Miramar is ideal, but when you might have to wait 10-20 years before even being able to CONSIDER that location, and then another 10-15 years of design, hearings, approvals, votes, and construction... something offshore looks enticing.

Plus, if you develop a BART-style connection with several trains running at the same time, even a marina next to the airport where the wealthier people can just take their yachts out to the airport, you wouldn't have a problem with access. You could set up a network of ferries too, leaving from say Encinitas, Mission Bay and Imperial Beach.... How cool would it be, if you weren't in a rush to reach a flight at the last minute, to take a boat out to the airport and cruise along the coast to get a great view along the way?!

I definitely think it's worth listening to and considering. San Diego is out of room for an airport the size that they really need. Without Miramar, you go east, or you go west. Going west is a lot closer.

even if you COULD see the airport, would it matter? 10 miles sounds too far though - could they build a bridge that far? this kind of proposal reminds me of kansai airport in osaka (though it was built on aritificial islands in a bay).

in my mind - the IDEAL location for an airport is where approaching planes (low-flying) are far (or as far as possible) from where people live but where the airport is close enough to the center of population and commerce - a delicate balance. placing the airport on the water is perfect. even access is not an issue as bridges and ferries can easily serve the need (the number of people using the ferries = that much not on the freeway driving to the airport). tolling the bridge would generate xtra revenue and encourage use of the ferries or rail (rail bridge should be built). already theyve built many airports next to the water here in cali, seems like the next logical step is ON the water.

works in japan. only thing is, they had the $$.

[SDCAL]

This 10 mile offshore airport idea with underwater tunnels and ferry's is the most Rube Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg) thinking that I have heard yet.

Question: Say that I live in Fallbrook,Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Poway,etc. Why would I even consider flying into an offshore airport off of Point Loma? I would fly into Orange County or Ontairo.

If you have ever taken a ferry to Catalina from Long Beach (26 miles), it takes about 45 minutes (on the water). Add another 30 minutes to board on and off. Point Loma to Oceanside would take at least that amount of time. Who would fly into San Diego when it would take hours to get to shore?

Nevermind the fact that it would cost a family of 4 $100 bucks to ride the ferry.

Why don't we take the $20 billion and give it to Boeing. They can develop a plane that lands on water and then transforms into a ship that takes the passengers to shore. It has about the same chance of being successful.

th e idea is far-fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. Obviously the points you bring up would be addressed if the idea ever went to a serious consideration. The would obvioulsy not build such an advanced airport and rely on a slow moving ferry to tranfer passengers or charge 100 dollars to get to the airport. Bottom line is there would be A LOT of concerns to hurdle, but the idea is not crazy. Japan has some kind of man-made island airport. I just think the idea would be even harder to get off the ground in SD than in other cities because people seem more resistant to out of the box thinking here than in other cities

[eburress]

I think the only way SD would be able to get a new airport anytime in the (relatively) near future would be to build a modal airport that would consist of three parts.

1. The Welcome
Parking, ticketing, baggage, rental car operations, and security checkpoints built somewhere here in-town...maybe even at Lindbergh since much of the infrastructure is already there.

2. The Link
Once folks get through security, they hop onto HSR trains which take them to the the planes.

3. Da plane! Da plane!
Somewhere in the middle of nowhere is the rest of the aiport - the runways, airplanes, control tower, and gates.

I expect that the most expensive and potentially infeasible aspect would be the HSR line, but at least the thing is not floating in the middle of the freaking ocean! :)

[sandiegodweller]

I think its a completely new building.

Interesting news about airport stuff, very far fetched though, I doubt this claim will go without complaint because it is a bit ridiculous, if the dude wants space for an airport, he'd only claim space for the airport and a little vicinity. This seems like a joke.

Floating Airport Proposal Takes Flight

POSTED: 5:51 pm PDT July 16, 2007
UPDATED: 6:33 pm PDT July 16, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
SAN DIEGO -- Could an offshore airport be in San Diego's future? A local businessman took the first step Monday in his quest to bring an offshore alternative to Lindbergh Field.

Images: Floating Airport Proposal Takes Flight
Watch Video

Adam Englund, an Encinitas attorney and CEO of Ocean Works Development, sent certified letters to federal, state and local government agencies, notifying them that he is staking claim on a 40,000-square-mile area of the Pacific Ocean. The area in the claim covers Point Conception in the north to the Mexican border in the south, from three miles off the coast to the Continental Shelf to the west.
Adblock


According to Englund, his design is unprecedented. The airport would be located ten miles off the coast of Point Loma. It would be secured to the ocean floor and could be accessed by a 10-mile light-rail tunnel, built 1,200 feet under the water. The line would likely have its mainland opening at Lindbergh Field, Englund said.

Construction would take place in China and the airport would be towed across the ocean, then pieced together.

SURVEY
Should San Diego build an offshore airport?
Yes
No
Results | Disclaimer

Englund told NBC 7/39 he formed his corporation several years ago with the goal of building an offshore airport. His Web site contains an artist's rendition of his proposed idea.

He said he believes the planning for a new airport has been "shortsighted," and said when he is on the coast, he looks to the west and sees an airport on the horizon. He said claiming an area of the ocean for development is unprecedented.

"By making the claim we're giving notice out to everybody that we intend to go forward with this project -- on a realistic business-like basis. And if anyone has a problem, they should let us know now because we're going to be moving forward," Englund said.

Englund estimates the cost of his design at $20 billion.

Last year, voters rejected a proposal to relocate airport operations to MCAS Miramar. The Airport Authority has included the option of an offshore airport it its site relocation studies, but has not followed through to the extent that Englund has done.

Offshore airports are currently in use in Japan, which has five. However, their construction differs a bit from what Ocean Works Development is proposing, in that they all have an above-ground connection with the mainland.

Any challenges to Englund's claim need to filed in federal court by October 16.

Lindbergh Field has served as the region's main airport for nearly 80 years.

Copyright 2007 by NBCSandiego.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
If you really had $20 Billion to spend on a new airport, you could offer to buy Tijuana Airport and everything in the flightpath across the border to Brown Field and have about $15 Billion left over.

[sandiegodweller]

th e idea is far-fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. Obviously the points you bring up would be addressed if the idea ever went to a serious consideration. The would obvioulsy not build such an advanced airport and rely on a slow moving ferry to tranfer passengers or charge 100 dollars to get to the airport. Bottom line is there would be A LOT of concerns to hurdle, but the idea is not crazy. Japan has some kind of man-made island airport. I just think the idea would be even harder to get off the ground in SD than in other cities because people seem more resistant to out of the box thinking here than in other cities
Are Japan's floating airports in a protected bay or are they 10 miles offshore in unprotected Pacific Ocean waters?

The Coastal Commission won't even let anyone drill for crude oil offshore. I can't see them allowing an airport complex to sit offshore.

[ucsbgaucho]

The main big Japanese airport, Kansai, that sits out in the water is protected in a big bay, but is right in the middle of typhoon country.

I think the San Diego airport would have to abandon the idea of underwater tunnels and just concentrate on ferries. Unless they built it closer to the coast. But think, you could do all your check-in and security at the numerous departure points in SD, then the ferry takes you right there. You hop off, hop onto a tram or moving walkway that takes you right to your terminal. Security would be much better, as the airport itself would never be in danger from a car bomb or someone wanting to blow up the terminal area before crossing through security. The airport itself would be easier to patrol with boats. It could handle the largest of airplanes, constant cargo trips, and would have unlimited space to expand.

The ferries would be operated by and paid for by the airport, if you fly from SD you dont pay for the ride to the airport. You wouldnt need huge long-term parking lots, you wouldn't have so many cars on the road all trying to get to one place. Sure, you can drive from Oceanside to OC or Long Beach for a flight, but wouldn't you rather drive 5 minutes, park your car, and then take a free boat ride?

[dl3000]

The thing about the article I thought was crazy was that the attorney guy is claiming SO MUCH space. Point Conception to Mexico? Ridiculous obviously it won't happen.

I agree with eburress, the separated airport is the most logical option, landside centrally located, and airside somewhere say out in the desert or maybe in the ocean if need be.

Also, Japan is not a good example because there aren't any operational FLOATING airports, maybe prototypes but no real ones. Japanese airports are on dirt and they are only something like a mile or two offshore so bridges are still simple and all are in bays so they still are in more shallow waters. The floating airport isnt too crazy to me, but 10 miles offshore is a bit far, they could probably use the suspension tunnel (a tube floats in the water just above the sea floor while being tethered down by cables) to carry the train which is cheaper, though this is also new technology.

[keg92101]

I see that you have a blog for East Village. I want to start a blog/message board that would allow more interaction from the masses (similar to SDLookup.com). I want to have discussions about new retaurants and reviews, new leases/tenants, development rumors and general East Village living. Does anyone have a suggestion about a service that hosts something like this?

Check out Yelp. It is a review blog that is covers everything across the country. You can specify your city when you sign up.

http://www.yelp.com

[sandiegodweller]

Check out Yelp. It is a review blog that is covers everything across the country. You can specify your city when you sign up.

http://www.yelp.com
Yelp looks good. Thanks.

[Crackertastik]

eburress has it absolutely correct. The airport would have to be in sections.

1. welcome, 2. transport to the planes, 3. DA planes!

1. i think the welcome can even be divided further. Welcome terminals and check in/parking could/should be in multiple locations. one in chula, one in downtown sd, one in say encinitas. then you transport them each to the airport via rail way east or way west.

2. The transport to the planes is going to be expensive and is GOING to have be quick and efficientwhether it is way in the desert or in ocean. The desert will be a much greater distance, though mountains, underground, or through purchased land. the tracks will need to be flat and straight to allow for fast transport. The ocean will be expensive because you will need to create that submerged suspended tunnel. I do not think ferries are a good idea at all. In fact a horrible idea. Rough weather, speed, offloading and loading all complicate things. it would be a much shorter distance for the rail though, less difficulty in routing. Just as expensive however and difficult.

3. The Planes - are GOING to have to be far from civilization leaves the desert way east, and the ocean way west. The placement in the desert will have to be in location that is flat or made flat, with good approaches from multiple directions. Feasible for sure. The WELCOME to the city of San Diego is less than ideal. The heat would be horrid. The technology for the floating airport is there, and actually tests show the larger the complex the MORE stable the structure gets. It is ideal because of flat approaches from every direction. Due to size, the ocean would have no effect. For the NIMBYs it would be too far off shore to see, and would actually create harbor for sea life because it is floating. Like a manmade kelp bed. However, marine layer may be an issue as well as rain. I am not sure statistics on off shore san diego weather. The welcome would be rediculously awesome, and more SAN DIEGO than a desert, not to mention world first and famous.

My vote is for the ocean airport. It is possible, daring, and could be the best airport in the world. EASILY!

[Derek]

Downtown LA?

[Derek]

I don't see why the transportation couldn't be above water, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is almost 24 miles long, a 10 mile long road is certainly possible.

[<ak/>]

My vote is for the ocean airport. It is possible, daring, and could be the best airport in the world. EASILY!

YES for the ocean airport!
that would be so cool :Titanic:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070114/images/nor-float2.jpg

[Crackertastik]

I don't see why the transportation couldn't be above water, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is almost 24 miles long, a 10 mile long road is certainly possible.

i suppose it could, but then you would have rough waters on an ocean, obstructed views, obstructed ocean currents.

underwater you are lot more protected from ocean conditions and a lot less obtrusive from a NIMBY perspective.

id be down for a desert one too, because those are the only two options. the rest is not gonna happen. i just think an ocean airport is more dramatic at equal cost.

[mongoXZ]

Are there any existing examples of either HSR or 10+ mile long bridges that cross oceans (not bays, lakes, etc.) leading from a mainland to a tiny island approximately the size of a proposed airport?

[sandiego_urban]

Some good dialogue going on about a new airport :tup: It would be nice to have a separate thread on the subject, but I'm not sure how long it would stay alive. :shrug:


Check out Yelp. It is a review blog that is covers everything across the country. You can specify your city when you sign up.
A great food review site is www.Chowhound.com

The San Diego talk is part of the California thread.

[<ak/>]

Are there any existing examples of either HSR or 10+ mile long bridges that cross oceans (not bays, lakes, etc.) leading from a mainland to a tiny island approximately the size of a proposed airport?

immersed tube section is not as long but it illustrates how technology already works somewhere out there

ISTANBUL, Turkey—The first immersed tube section of a new rail tunnel joining Europe and Asia was recently placed in a trench at the bottom of the Bosphorus Straits in Istanbul, Turkey, as part of the Marmaray Project. The project, with an estimated cost of $3 billion, will provide a tunnel connection between Europe and Asia.
http://www.cenews.com/userfiles/image/issue-images/2007-06-News-1.JPG
The 450-foot-long, immersed tube tunnel elements are rectangular and consist of two adjacent ducts, each containing one track. Eleven tunnel elements will make up the 0.87-mile-long immersed tunnel section.

http://www.cenews.com/article.asp?id=1838

http://www.marmaray.com/images/wel_map.jpg

[spoonman]

I guess it's my turn to weigh in on the San Diego International Floatport.

I'm happy to see that there is growing support on this forum for such an idea. For a minute there I was a little suprised to see many on this forum taking the position that the idea was too "radical", for lack of a better term. Many of you keep saying that this city doesn't want to innovate, create an icon, or take dramatic steps to resolve issues. After saying those things, some turn around and shoot down ideas such as the floating airport saying it's too crazy, not possible or dismiss it all together.

I realize that the airport would be one of the most extreme public works projects ever, but it is extreme in it's genious, not it's viability. Additionally, if our city accepts the idea of spending money for HSR into the middle of nowhere (random desert location airport), this floatport concept may instead see the light of day.

[HurricaneHugo]

how much does it cost to build the airport in the desert and the high speed rail to connect it with the city?

[spoonman]

I'm really not sure. I guess as with anything there are different options that would raise or lower the cost of construction. Anything we get will be in the Billions. The federal government will likely pay the vast majority of the tab.

^They should anyway for screwing us out of Miramar (not counting Susan Golding of course). They should split it 50/50 with the people that protested the Miramar plan...lol

[spoonman]

Here's a link to an article that mentions the cost of the Floatport and that the Floatport idea has been considered since the 1960's.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4847

An article about the Japanese proposal for a floating airport...

http://www.jsce.org/Publication/CE_JSCE/2000/realizing.pdf

Last but not least, San Diego's very own Floatport Inc...

http://www.floatinc.com/Floatport.html

[<ak/>]

how much does it cost to build the airport in the desert and the high speed rail to connect it with the city?

same price range:
SAN DIEGO ---- If leaders were to build an international airport in the desert, it would cost anywhere from $15 billion to $25 billion to construct a high-speed train to transport San Diego County residents to the remote site, a new study says.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/18/news/top_stories/21_08_433_17_06.txt

[spoonman]

I'm really pissed at the Airport Authority for doing nothing. I think that was their intention all along.

Anyone else have an opinion on that?

[sandiego_urban]

The 15th & Market proposal looks pretty nice. It should complement the colors of nearby ICON.

ICON
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Jaygergon/downtown%20development/icon.bmp


15th & Market
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Jaygergon/downtown%20development%203/15Mkt_rendering_72.jpg

Cosmo Square is to be auctioned in late July Early August. Notice of Default has been filed. Such a shame.
What a bummer :( Do you think there is a chance that the new buyer will proceed with the original plans since it's already been approved?? I hope so.



In the meantime, I was able to dig up more renderings of the much-loved proposal -

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8520/006by6.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/627/002jr2.jpg

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5861/004xc4.jpg

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1854/003mq2.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5932/005zc7.jpg



Anyone able to go to this meeting next week? I'm thinking they'll be showing renderings of all of the big projects we're most interested in - Irvine Tower, Lane Field, Bosa's latest proposal and NBC, along with the Broadway and B St. piers. If I didn't have to work, I'd go.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/4404/jpapostcard726eth1.jpg

[<ak/>]

according to my calculation value of land comprised by SDIA would be roughly $10B assuming it is worth downtown land price ;) that is half of the cost of the floating airport
i don't know how much i can rely on sources of my information though:
http://www.san.org/documents/amp/Preliminary_Draft_AMP/03_06__SANMP_ExistingConditions_ExistingLandUses.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1585/is_200410/ai_n7357462

[Derek]

Go NEVP!

[ucsbgaucho]

The only tough thing with going with an underwater tube system of high speed trains to reach the floating airport is that you could probably only get away with one land-based terminal. You couldn't have 3 tubes running out to sea from various points. I'd say you put the terminal somewhere at the current Lindbergh site, with a few big parking garages, a direct trolley line coming from Santa Fe Depot and Old Town, and all your ticketing/baggage/security areas. From there you hop on to one of four mag-lev trains that are running at all times, so the wait is no more than 10 minutes for any train. Each train I would suspect would hold about the same as a standard Coaster train, with 3-4 cars each holding maybe 200 people. The trip would take about 6 minutes out to the airport, where you'd be put into the center of the structure, underneath. From there, you go up one of two banks of escalators/elevators to your airline terminal on either side. In the center of the airport in addition to the terminals would be restaurants, shops, outdoor viewing area, etc.

The airport would be off limits to small aircraft and maybe private jets, as you probably wouldn't want to take up valuable space with plane storage areas. Fuel could be brought in by tanker and unloaded directly into the storage tanks. The airport would have to have the ability to handle boat ferry traffic, in the event something DID happen to the underwater trains. Maybe an enclosed marina area that is shielded from swells and waves.

The tube could be sunk directly out the channel leading out of SD bay, and the land-based terminals could theoretically be mostly underground, with only one or two stories above ground. Trolleys and roads come in, you enter at ground level, go through ticketing, go downstairs where you go through security, and then over to your train. The computerized system could tell you which train you'll be on based on your time of arrival/checkin, or maybe based on your time going through security. Since you can now "check in" from home, the security system would scan your ticket when you go through, and pop out what track to walk to to catch your train based on how many other people are there, and what time your flight is. This would alleviate the problem of tons of people crowding onto the first available train at busy times like Christmas. Same with arrivals, when you get off your flight you'll be told which track to go to, just like baggage.

Baggage handling would be the tough one. the trains should run on a regular basis, not based on flight schedules. So do people have to take their luggage through security and onto the trains themselves? And then do they check luggage once they get out to the airport? Do you have a separate tube that takes the luggage out to the airport alongside the trains, at the same speed, so that luggage can be checked in from the land-based terminal?

I think the difficulty will be in getting people and their luggage to and from the airport. I dont think engineering the airport itself would be the most difficult task. And building the airport itself would be fairly easy as it could be built elsewhere and then just assembled on site, and as someone else put it, with the steelyards and shipyards in SD, they'd have a close location to fabricate most of it.

I sure hope someone continues to pursue this actively and seriously, as I dont really see too many BAD things about it.

Someone mentioned weather and fog, and from what I understand, is its only a big concern when you have big obstacles to deal with... Buildings, mountains, etc. With a floating airport, the plane's instruments would be able to function all the way down to the deck, so they could land and take off in 0 visibility. And I'm sure in the design process, a new system could be developed on the airport itself to help guide planes in... lasers, radar systems, whatnot.

[stockjock]

A floating airport isn't going to happen here.

That is all.

[spoonman]

:pet:

[SDCAL]

A floating airport isn't going to happen here.

That is all.

I disagree. Maybe not anytime soon, but if we are 10-15 years in the future and the airport has reached a critical capacity shortage to where the public is demanding something be done and there are no other alternatives something will have to give and alternative ideas will be the only lifelines the crappy do-nothing politicans will have to cling to. This will be because these jackasses will have likely done abosolutely nothing in the meantime and will be scrambling in the end. Those who balk at the people proposing this now will be begging these "radical thinkers" to save their sorry, NIMBY, political-asses when a true crisis is looming within their term

granted, I do think in such a scenario the military, not because they give two cents about our city but for PR purposes, would probably give up miramar before we would be forced into an offshore airport, but you never know

Right now people talk about a new airport like it's some fun plan to envision big jets taking off for distant lands right from our own city, like it's a ficticious wish-list item that we can take or leave if we so choose. People aren't really grasping that the politics, environmental evaluations, planning, construction, etc take many many years for a new airport to reach the point of being operational and the longer we do nothing, the more we reach a critical timepoint to which the whole process of building a new airport can not be completed before noticable problems start occruing at the current facility. It really is a critical issue and looking at things like a sea-based airport are not being done out of whimsy, they are being done because we are running out of time and alternatives

[eburress]

A floating airport isn't going to happen here.

That is all.

I agree...and I would take it a step further by saying that an airport of ANY kind isn't going to happen here for at least 50 years. This town doesn't have the head-and-asswire to pull something off like that -- and don't forget all the people who want to keep SD small and quaint.

[Derek]

I'll run for mayor. ;)

[SDCAL]

Today was a sad day in brazil, the country experienced it's worst airline disaster ever with almost 200 people killed when a TAM airline trying to make a landing at Sao Paulo's Congonhas airport ran out of runway space during a rainstorm, sped onto a road, then crashed into a nearby building leaving everyone on board dead.

News articles describe the airport as being in an unusually urban area (for an airport) and as having notoriously "short and slippery" runways.

an excerpt from a cnn article reads:

"Tom Hennigan, a reporter from The Times of London in Sao Paulo, told CNN that flying into Congonhas "is like you are literally flying past people's living rooms in apartment blocks. Then you land on the runway. It is completely surrounded by the central part of Sao Paulo city. This is not an airport out on the edge of the city. This is right in the city."

In February, a Brazilian court banned large jets at the busy airport because of safety concerns. But there was an outcry about limiting the convenient, busy airport, and an appeals court reversed the ruling."

The description makes me think about how when i fly into San Diego from the east, it feels like you are so close to balboa park and the surrounding buildings you can reach down and touch them from your window. A cool site to see landing, but how safe is it?

Obviously SD and Sao Paulo are two different airports with two entirely differnet sets of circumstances, but the overall point is how safe is it to have an airport smack in the middle of a large growing city and should the masses who think it's "convinient" be able to sway politicians and city planners into overlooking the safety concerns?

When you are in a situation where runways can't accomodate lareger planes due to being too short and you have lawsuits between builders and the FDA about tearing two floors off the top of a building because it's in the flight-path and deemed too high, it's a sign your airport is in the WRONG F'ING LOCATION

[SDCAL]

I agree...and I would take it a step further by saying that an airport of ANY kind isn't going to happen here for at least 50 years. This town doesn't have the head-and-asswire to pull something off like that -- and don't forget all the people who want to keep SD small and quaint.

No, it won't be 50 years, even in a conservative, narrow-minded town where the politicians have their heads up their arses, public outcry will turn the heat on when soccer moms with screaming babies have to sit in rediculous lines for their midwest flights or drive to LA or TJ to catch a flight. The city has shown they don't care what business or current international travelers think, but when the average joe family guy who uses the airport starts getting effected, public opinion will force something to happen

Like I said in a previous post, my prediction is that in about 15 years we will start to see the ill effects of an inadequate airport effect the masses and the military will give up Miraramar for pr reasons so they don't look like they are standing in the way of the problem (even though they ARE).

If you look at SANDAG website, San Diego's population projections for the next 30 years have already been adjusted updward. I don't think people were accurately predicting just how many foreign immigrants (mostly from mexico, latin/central america and asia) San Diego will be picking up in the next 25 years and each prediction from groups like SANDAG increases the percentages with each new projection.

If they are underestimating the population growth, they are probably also underestimating the date with which Lindbergh will "reach capacity" but that date is really not valid, the date that matters is when the average joe traveler starts to encounter MAJOR hassle and delays at the airport. This is when they will act and it will happen well before 50 yrs

[Derek]

The metro population is suppose to exceed 4 million by 2025 (not including Tijuana, which ,combined, reaches over 5 million people).

[spoonman]

I think Eburess and SDCAL are both right about the will of the people to do jack. Without the political will, there is no movement toward change. When it comes to the floating airport itself though, the concept wouldn't really seem that odd if there was actually support for a new airport. It's that as long as people think the current SDIA is healthy, they perceive any new airport (especially one that floats) as a luxury item.

[keg92101]

I thought this was a development thread, not a floating airport debate.

[IconRPCV]

I travel alot and it I am quite tired of spending hours in Chicago and Dallas and even Cleveland waiting for connections home to SD. I was returning from Germany last week and this was the route that I had to trave: Cologne to Newark, newark to Cleveland and finally Cleveland to San Diego. One would think that we live in the back woods of Nebraska instead of a city of three million people. I know that SD will not get more corporations or big buisness until our airport can handle non~stop flights from Asia and Europe. Next time I come back from Germany I want it to be on a non~stop from Frankfurt.

[Derek]

I thought this was a development thread, not a floating airport debate.

It's just about the only thing we have to talk about right now.

[Derek]

I travel alot and it I am quite tired of spending hours in Chicago and Dallas and even Cleveland waiting for connections home to SD. I was returning from Germany last week and this was the route that I had to trave: Cologne to Newark, newark to Cleveland and finally Cleveland to San Diego. One would think that we live in the back woods of Nebraska instead of a city of three million people. I know that SD will not get more corporations or big buisness until our airport can handle non~stop flights from Asia and Europe. Next time I come back from Germany I want it to be on a non~stop from Frankfurt.

If we get lucky, Lufthansa expressed interest in non-stops from San Diego to Frankfurt and Frankfurt to San Diego, so talks are definitely going on.

[eburress]

public outcry will turn the heat on

In many other cities I would agree with you, but unfortunately for us, "the public" here places much more value on keeping San Diego small and quaint than convenience, growth, development, and ultimately common sense.

Even if the city had the money, the available land, and didn't have their heads of their arses, it's still a moot point because the people here don't want an airport. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[eburress]

I thought this was a development thread, not a floating airport debate.

Development in San Diego is becoming increasingly dependent upon (and constrained by) their airport. New airport = more and taller development.

[eburress]

I travel alot and it I am quite tired of spending hours in Chicago and Dallas and even Cleveland waiting for connections home to SD. I was returning from Germany last week and this was the route that I had to trave: Cologne to Newark, newark to Cleveland and finally Cleveland to San Diego. One would think that we live in the back woods of Nebraska instead of a city of three million people. I know that SD will not get more corporations or big buisness until our airport can handle non~stop flights from Asia and Europe. Next time I come back from Germany I want it to be on a non~stop from Frankfurt.

I hate this too. On my return from Puerto Vallarata last week, I spent 10 hours trapped in layover hell in Phoenix. One would think you could at least get a direct flight from SD to Mexican destinations, being that we're on the freakin' border.

[Derek]

US Airways has some direct flights to Mexico. As does Aeromexico.

[sandiegodweller]

No, it won't be 50 years, even in a conservative, narrow-minded town where the politicians have their heads up their arses, public outcry will turn the heat on when soccer moms with screaming babies have to sit in rediculous lines for their midwest flights or drive to LA or TJ to catch a flight. The city has shown they don't care what business or current international travelers think, but when the average joe family guy who uses the airport starts getting effected, public opinion will force something to happen

Like I said in a previous post, my prediction is that in about 15 years we will start to see the ill effects of an inadequate airport effect the masses and the military will give up Miraramar for pr reasons so they don't look like they are standing in the way of the problem (even though they ARE).

If you look at SANDAG website, San Diego's population projections for the next 30 years have already been adjusted updward. I don't think people were accurately predicting just how many foreign immigrants (mostly from mexico, latin/central america and asia) San Diego will be picking up in the next 25 years and each prediction from groups like SANDAG increases the percentages with each new projection.

If they are underestimating the population growth, they are probably also underestimating the date with which Lindbergh will "reach capacity" but that date is really not valid, the date that matters is when the average joe traveler starts to encounter MAJOR hassle and delays at the airport. This is when they will act and it will happen well before 50 yrs
Are these immigrants from Mexico and Central America wealthy enough to buy airline tickets in large numbers?

Where are they flying to?

[sandiegodweller]

Taller buildings are driven by demand and cost. When the market will bear $1000+ psf units, developers will build up to 500 feet.

The current proposed projects are the product of cheap money and amatuer developers. If 500' was currently economically feasible possible, wouldn't BOSA (who had the best sites) push the envelope on all of their sites? They only get one shot on each site so they might as well maximize it. Obvioulsy, they have determined that the incremental value of building those last few stories wasn't worth it. They can't sell them for enough money to justify the extra engineering and construction costs.

I believe that the costs increase quite a bit above 40 +/- stories. Even in Las Vegas, which apparently doesn't have a height limit (Stratoshere), most of the proposed highrise developements top out near 40 stories.

http://www.manhattanization.com/las-vegas/las-vegas-high-rises.rub

[HurricaneHugo]

I hate this too. On my return from Puerto Vallarata last week, I spent 10 hours trapped in layover hell in Phoenix. One would think you could at least get a direct flight from SD to Mexican destinations, being that we're on the freakin' border.

damn, and i was going to complain about my 5 hour layover in SF when i went/came from Paris...

but at least I was able to take a quick visit to downtown SF, there's nothing in Phoenix..

[SDCAL]

damn, and i was going to complain about my 5 hour layover in SF when i went/came from Paris...

but at least I was able to take a quick visit to downtown SF, there's nothing in Phoenix..

There are some direct Mexico flights from SAN, including a seasonal one to Cancun

[bmfarley]

North Embarcadero Visionary Plan JPA Meeting… anyone notice that one project to be presented is Bosa’s development project on the southeast corner of Broadway and Pacific Highway? That’s right in front of Electra. Is this a new project, or is it this one:

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.projectDetail&propertyID=353
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/Bosa%20Pacific%20Hwy%20at%20E.jpg

[spoonman]

Taller buildings are driven by demand and cost. When the market will bear $1000+ psf units, developers will build up to 500 feet.

The current proposed projects are the product of cheap money and amatuer developers. If 500' was currently economically feasible possible, wouldn't BOSA (who had the best sites) push the envelope on all of their sites? They only get one shot on each site so they might as well maximize it. Obvioulsy, they have determined that the incremental value of building those last few stories wasn't worth it. They can't sell them for enough money to justify the extra engineering and construction costs.

I believe that the costs increase quite a bit above 40 +/- stories. Even in Las Vegas, which apparently doesn't have a height limit (Stratoshere), most of the proposed highrise developements top out near 40 stories.

http://www.manhattanization.com/las-vegas/las-vegas-high-rises.rub

This argument doesn't make sense. First of all most cities that have taller buildings than ours actually have lower costs per square foot. Also, developers don't care if a building is 500 feet or 480 in the case of Electra. It's absurd to think that Electra couldn't be 20 feet taller without hardship on the project. Developers only care about height when it genuinely equals higher prices. They don't need to squeeze the project for 8 more units when they have 2 or 3 other buildings going up down the street. But if there was no height limit, you would surely see ego buildings of 700 feet that would command the highest prices in the city because of the prestige and height. But to look at our plateaued skyline and think that it is 100% the result of market forces is unlikely in my opinion.

[sandiego_urban]

^^I'm hoping that's the project they are talking about. I really like the design :tup:


I was returning from Germany last week and this was the route that I had to trave: Cologne to Newark, newark to Cleveland and finally Cleveland to San Diego.
Did you use mileage points or something? You can fly from Newark to SAN nonstop on Northwest. Most recently, I flew from Munich to SAN with a stop in ATL. I've also done Brussels to SAN via Philly. But, yeah, I agree that it would be nice to fly nonstop to Europe again. Hopefully, Lufthansa will replace the British Airways flight that stopped a couple of years ago.

Taller buildings are driven by demand and cost. When the market will bear $1000+ psf units, developers will build up to 500 feet.

The current proposed projects are the product of cheap money and amatuer developers. If 500' was currently economically feasible possible, wouldn't BOSA (who had the best sites) push the envelope on all of their sites? They only get one shot on each site so they might as well maximize it. Obvioulsy, they have determined that the incremental value of building those last few stories wasn't worth it. They can't sell them for enough money to justify the extra engineering and construction costs.
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you here. The only reason why we haven't had any towers pass the 500' mark is because of the FAA imposed height limit. To make matters worse, it's a 500' mean sea level height. Meaning, because of the downtown's varied topography, we'll never see a true 500' tower again. America Plaza is our only 500' tower and will most likely be the only one for along time.

In the meantime, we've had so many proposals reach the 500' msl limit, ie, Vantage Pointe, Mondrian aka Grigio, Library Tower, Shapery Park Tower, the recently announced Marriott towers, Riviera, etc. If no height limit existed, there's no doubt in my mind that all of these proposals would be much taller than what has been proposed. The most ridiculous proposal is Mondrian which is suppose to have over 900 units in a 410' tower.