PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

bmfarley
Jul 25, 2007, 4:05 PM
NBC - does anyone else think 5 hotels in a four-block development is too much? This is prime waterfront land and it is going to be a playground for tourists, nothing those of us that live here can enjoy :(

As Derek said, the building are nice but nothing mind-blowing. the project is good for downtown but for this particular location I think it could be much better and much more creative. with lane field nearby adding two other hotels, this will be 8 new hotels lining out waterfront - - do we really want our waterfront area to be tourist-central???


If only CCDC and the City had a say in this project. Oh well. :cool:

ShekelPop
Jul 25, 2007, 4:30 PM
NBC - does anyone else think 5 hotels in a four-block development is too much? This is prime waterfront land and it is going to be a playground for tourists, nothing those of us that live here can enjoy :(

As Derek said, the building are nice but nothing mind-blowing. the project is good for downtown but for this particular location I think it could be much better and much more creative. with lane field nearby adding two other hotels, this will be 8 new hotels lining out waterfront - - do we really want our waterfront area to be tourist-central???

I had a similar thought the other day. Problem is, they can't build residential, so short of some type of civic use (ampitheatre, opera house), which wouldnt pencil out financially without some type of public incentive, there aren't many other options. At the very least, all those beds in the hotels will put people on the streets, and maybe since there's so many hotels, there'll be enough people actually using all the potentially worthless (potentially, in my opinion) public space included in the NBC proposal as well as in NEVP.

ShekelPop
Jul 25, 2007, 4:37 PM
Bayside sounds like a good project, some news via sandiegometro.com, Daily Business Report:

"Sales at Bayside at the Embarcadero, a Downtown high-rise by Bosa Development, have passed $95 million, says CEO Nat Bosa. Sixty-six homes have sold since the grand opening in February. "Bayside sales have remained strong despite the slowdown felt in other areas of the San Diego real estate market," says Bosa. "Bayside represents one of the last new residential opportunities on the San Diego bay." The 36-story building is located on Pacific Highway between Ash and A streets. It will have 232 residences, including 209 tower suites, 12 walkup flats and 12 townhomes. Homes will range from a one-bedroom, two-bath, 1,031-square-foot flat to a three-bedroom, four-bath, 8,370-square-foot penthouse. Pricing begins at $750,000, with the penthouse being offered at $12.5 million. First move-ins are anticipated for fall 2009. The sales center is at 121 West Market St. and is open 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. The phone is (619) 239-2339."

sdperry
Jul 25, 2007, 4:37 PM
Do you have any renders of these projects? I grew up in SH so i'm interested to see any new projects coming up.:)

The first project sounds like it'll be right in front of the El Bazar/Farmer's Market, or even replacing it?

Very good, yes, it is actually incorporating the existing Farmers Market building, but you can't tell from the rendering because the view is the opposite side from the silos.
I couldn't grab the rendering off of Fehlman LaBarre's website because its all in flash, but if you want to see it go to:
http://www.fehlmanlabarre.com/#projects

then click on "urban mixed living"
then click the last project on the bottom "Imperial Marketplace"

I don't know the architect for the other project to search for a rendering, sorry, but I'll ask who it is at the next community meeting.

keg92101
Jul 25, 2007, 6:30 PM
Do you have any renders of these projects? I grew up in SH so i'm interested to see any new projects coming up.:)

The first project sounds like it'll be right in front of the El Bazar/Farmer's Market, or even replacing it?

Here it is. And I was mistaken. It is actually closer to 66 DU per acre, which is still pretty low.

http://www.sandiegometro.com/images/0706/uli_2.jpg

sdperry
Jul 25, 2007, 7:08 PM
Here it is. And I was mistaken. It is actually closer to 66 DU per acre, which is still pretty low.

http://www.sandiegometro.com/images/0706/uli_2.jpg

This is the one South of the Fehlman LaBarre Imperial project right? On Commercial? Do you know who the architect or owner are? Thanks.

mello
Jul 25, 2007, 7:33 PM
Exactly what else can they put there besides hotels?? I mean the office market isn't hot, can't put residential, so....... I mean it is what it is. It would be great to have some sort of Sydney Opera House type structure, or some Gehryesque blob looking thingy but even those are played out now.

I don't know, it is too bad we can't build something tall and thin to save space like the Chicago Spire, (not that tall but maybe 900 feet) then we wouldn't have all of these short midrises sucking up so much land.

Derek
Jul 25, 2007, 7:46 PM
^^^ I don't get what all the hoopla is about. No offense, but isn't NEVP just a patch of grass with a glorified Seaport Village slammed in the middle. I'd rather see the money go to putting in traffic lights in the East Village...lol

Not really. It adds a long park along the entire bayfront, replaces facilities on the piers downtown, making a larger, nicer cruise ship terminal for the growing cruise ship industry (our current is pretty much the equivalent of shit) and adds smaller terminals for other boats. A very environmentally friendly project, replacing those horrible parking lots with grass, trees and public art, creating a beautiful waterfront.



One of you said the NEVP park space would be "useless". I completely disagree. Have you ever really noticed how many people strole that area daily? From tourists and cruise ship guests to residents of downtown. I'm pretty sure walking through a park with trees and art is a lot more comfortable and pleasing than walking through all those cars and porn magazine stands.

spoonman
Jul 25, 2007, 8:25 PM
^^^I have to agree with you about the parking lots. Nothing bothers me more. I'd like to see a parking structure built along with the cruise ship terminal (that's part of the plan isn't it?) to use less space for those cars and have increased capacity for growing cruise demand.

I like parks too. Unfortunately I don't believe they get nearly as much use as people would have us believe. The problem with parks is that they are impossible to get rid of. Not that you'd want to tear out a park, but once the thing is in, the land is forever "spoken for". Moreso even than if it had a highrise on it. If the city decided that it wanted to build an opera house where a park is, the cat-ladys of the world would cry bloody murder. I wish the city would create squares instead of giant parks which are on the perimeter and fairly inaccessible.

spoonman
Jul 25, 2007, 8:35 PM
I'd love to see squares like those below. The one if front of Horton Plaza is a good example. It would be great if we could get away from palm trees just for a minute too.

Gramercy Park
http://www.alteich.com/tidbits/grampark.jpg

Madison Square Park
http://www.virtualnyc.info/photo_album/flatironarea/pict/md92.jpg
http://www.virtualnyc.info/photo_album/flatironarea/pict/md91.jpg

Derek
Jul 25, 2007, 8:48 PM
Well the park is not going to be very wide, just a mile long down the entire waterfront, there definitely wouldn't be any room to develop anything on it, so fights for development probably wouldn't happen.

I'm not sure if they are building a parking garage actually, but it would make sense. It would have to be done right though, we don't want another concrete ugly up there on the waterfront.

Derek
Jul 25, 2007, 10:03 PM
When do you guys think Petco Park will host the All Star Game?

mello
Jul 25, 2007, 10:36 PM
^^^ Probably within the next 3 years. I mean it is *the* example of an urban ballpark. Think about it, what other park is literally *in downtown* it is almost totally surrounded by buildings. I really wish Cosmo would get built because it would have such a "wow factor" from inside the park.

Ok what ballparks have a better view of a skyline, St. Louis's new one has a pretty good view and of course Pittsburgh is bad ass. I think if 7th and Market gets built it will have close to the impact that Cosmo would have.

Derek
Jul 25, 2007, 11:34 PM
I hope so. I was just thinking that newer ballparks usually get the nod, so San Diego should definitely have it's turn.

DowntownSDJoe
Jul 25, 2007, 11:48 PM
here is whats going on with the all star game coming to Petco.....

2008:yankee stadium
2009:st louis
2010:Anaheim (most likely)
2011:hopefully petco,but remember cincy has a new park as does philly,so we may not get one till 2013 or maybe even 2015 if they keep to the NL then AL pattern

Derek
Jul 26, 2007, 2:19 AM
Doesn't seem fair. The St. Louis stadium opened in 2006.

DowntownSDJoe
Jul 26, 2007, 2:29 AM
yeah i think its pretty dumb too,but we had an all star game at the Q in 1992 and the last all star game in st louis was 1966, so i guess its only fair to give them a turn

HurricaneHugo
Jul 26, 2007, 3:19 AM
Very good, yes, it is actually incorporating the existing Farmers Market building, but you can't tell from the rendering because the view is the opposite side from the silos.
I couldn't grab the rendering off of Fehlman LaBarre's website because its all in flash, but if you want to see it go to:
http://www.fehlmanlabarre.com/#projects

then click on "urban mixed living"
then click the last project on the bottom "Imperial Marketplace"

I don't know the architect for the other project to search for a rendering, sorry, but I'll ask who it is at the next community meeting.

eehh the architecture could be a bit better but its still good

i always thought that Imperial Avenue should see its share of mid-rise buildings

keg92101
Jul 26, 2007, 4:39 AM
I'd love to see squares like those below. The one if front of Horton Plaza is a good example. It would be great if we could get away from palm trees just for a minute too.

Gramercy Park
http://www.alteich.com/tidbits/grampark.jpg

Madison Square Park
http://www.virtualnyc.info/photo_album/flatironarea/pict/md92.jpg
http://www.virtualnyc.info/photo_album/flatironarea/pict/md91.jpg

San Diego needs to learn from East Coast Parks / Squares. SD landscape architects DO NOT understand how to create spaces that encourage gathering. Too often, they design a space that looks great, and that's it...

sdperry
Jul 26, 2007, 5:11 AM
eehh the architecture could be a bit better but its still good

i always thought that Imperial Avenue should see its share of mid-rise buildings

Yeah, the design could be better.
I have some more news about this project that should make some of the grumpy folks who don't like to see CCDC spend money on the lighting of the J and Island overpasses feel a little better-
A component of this project is for the developer to pay for lighting and artwork and other improvements to the tunnel that runs under the highway at Imperial between Sherman Heights and East Village. So if this project gets built, that area won't be such a den for homeless and should help that part of the East Village feel safer...

Derek
Jul 26, 2007, 5:29 AM
yeah i think its pretty dumb too,but we had an all star game at the Q in 1992 and the last all star game in st louis was 1966, so i guess its only fair to give them a turn

Looking at it like that it makes more sense.

spoonman
Jul 26, 2007, 7:16 PM
...So if this project gets built, that area won't be such a den for homeless and should help that part of the East Village feel safer...

I haven't seen as many homeless as I used to in the downtown/east village. If you go down to the east village near you'll still see camps, but to me it seems like it's less than it used to be. Did they move into golden hill or down by the bridge/shipyards? I can't imagine their situation has gotten better.

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 6:41 AM
Wow...this thread is dead

HurricaneHugo
Jul 27, 2007, 6:43 AM
anybody going to comic con?

mello
Jul 27, 2007, 6:47 AM
Well then Spoonman I guess I will through in my two cents on the NBC complex...

hmmm... I liked one forumers idea a while back about some kind of "elevated park" to provide water views from this area. Now this would be something intruiging and atleast "different" I know that different isn't always good though. I think the project does seem pretty bland I mean nothing knocks your socks off....

I'm trying to think of something that could be done on that site that is original. I mean Madrid already has the leaning buildings so you can't do that lol. We have a height limit so just building tall to create a signature is out of the question so it has to be something unique.

I really think an elevated public space with sweeping views could be the way to go. I just don't know how to pull it off.

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 6:51 AM
Maybe the space could have an ampitheater which would allow for bay views and live music. People could stumble over from gaslamp on a friday afternoon and watch the show:tup:

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 6:55 AM
PS: Has anyone had a chance to read my thread on the I-15 managed lanes???

mello
Jul 27, 2007, 7:53 AM
Yes I read it, good work spoon, looks like others from around the nation are commenting and paying close attention to how the project pans out.

I like the ampitheatre idea too. Haven't heard one proposed but that would be great, maybe like a modern really cool twist on an ampitheatre making it look kind futuristic

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 8:31 AM
The ampitheater idea was conceived off a bottle of 2-buck chuck...lol

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 8:33 AM
I'm looking forward to seeing Pei Cobb, NBC, and 7th & Market break ground. Let's hope it happens soon!

mello
Jul 27, 2007, 8:34 AM
The ampitheater idea was conceived off a bottle of 2-buck chuck...lol


Lol Spoonman classic.... just ah shit that one really made me laugh.

Maybe that is what Jerry Sanders and all of the great "Visionary San Diegans" need to get us an airport, Stadium/Arena, and something striking at NBC....

A good ole bottle uh 2 Buck Chuck :cheers: :jester:

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 8:51 AM
LMAO...thanks!!!

The city could always use a few more things. Don't worry though, it could always be worse, you could be in Lake Forest like me. OC is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring. I think what the city needs is a Times Square sort of place. Something with flashing tv screens and the like. Something loud and intense. Maybe on 4th avenue or something.

Derek
Jul 27, 2007, 1:45 PM
In case any of you guys missed it.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=134463&page=2

Marina_Guy
Jul 27, 2007, 2:28 PM
I don't recall anyone posting this over here, so here's the NBC project's latest iteration.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070721/images/navy430.jpg

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070721/images/navy430.gif

It could be a little taller (add 10 stories to each building), but overall I think it's pretty sharp.

I am sorry buildings 1 and 2 (twin towers) are so uninspiring. This whole project is uninspiring and a postcard of what is wrong with San Diego. The site is blah. This project will be mired in court for a couple of years, so keep looking at the conceptional drawings and enjoy.

It is amazing how CCDC and the City are TRYING to let this project go forward without Coastal Commission review. (I am sorry but reviews done in 1992 don't count!) Many have said it before, but this is land that the City of San Diego passed along to the Navy to help serve the interests of the country, and now it is being turned into a playground for rich tourists, and the cheap Navy is getting a free building out of the deal! Give me a break. I think the Department of Defense budget is big enough to accomodate a headquarters building for the Navy. Why do I as a citizen of San Diego have to give up my public land so the Navy can get a FREE building.

One day San Diego will have inspiring leaders that will create public spaces that include CIVIC buildings and not hotels. We can only look back to early 20th century when a small town (San Diego) built Balboa Park without hotels! Thank you for letting me vent.

eburress
Jul 27, 2007, 3:30 PM
^^ Civic buildings cost money.

SDCAL
Jul 27, 2007, 3:59 PM
San Diego needs to learn from East Coast Parks / Squares. SD landscape architects DO NOT understand how to create spaces that encourage gathering. Too often, they design a space that looks great, and that's it...

We do have Balboa Park which is one of the best parks in the country in my opinion and it a true asset to the city, but other than that the smaller urban parks are pretty bad, discourage people from gathering and look like shit

I don't agree with the earlier post of getting away from "palm trees" and trying to reproduce East Coast parks, our climate is completely different.

Our weather zone gives us great variety in the use of plants and trees that many other areas of the country can't use. I think our new parks should focus on using meditteranean-climate firendly trees such as palms, but do so in a more natural way that encourages gathering and strolling but makes the parks look like they belong here.

Something seems odd about parks that try too look too East-Coastish out of their respective climate zones

Horton plaza broadway entrance is a perfect example of a fake-looking concrete nightmare with palms thrown in to somehow soften the mess, which obviously is very unappealing.

Parks that use warmer-weather plants like palms, bamboo, flowering shrubs like hybiscus, larger bird of paradise/bannana trees/other large-leafed plants, etc generally look better in a more informal Japanese-style landscape that mimics nature with water elements (natural as opposed to fountains), whereas temperate plants like evergreens, maples, cherry trees etc. tend to look better in the more structured and equally-balanced European-style landscapes (take Washhington DC)that are common of public squares back East that include lots of concrete and man-made touches such as fences, fountains, etc.

It seems like downtown projects in the East Village have stopped using palms, as all the new developments are using more temperate looking trees such as the maples engineered to grow here along with the brick buildings to try and make the developments seem more East Coast, but alot of them just don't seem to fit-in here. We can have urban greenery that uses local plants if done right

I think the bayfront area provides a perfect spot to create parkland that will be both appealing, useful and look nothing like the East Coast. Using palms and other sub-tropical plants to create a NATURAL looking and lush pathway for the area that calls for a narrow but long park would be good. I envision it being more of a "strolling' park that people walk through as opposed to a park where people actually stop and gather due to the lack of civic space. As far as use, once projects are built up in that area I think it would get tons of use.

SDCAL
Jul 27, 2007, 4:06 PM
I'd love to see squares like those below. The one if front of Horton Plaza is a good example. It would be great if we could get away from palm trees just for a minute too.

Gramercy Park
http://www.alteich.com/tidbits/grampark.jpg

Madison Square Park
http://www.virtualnyc.info/photo_album/flatironarea/pict/md92.jpg
http://www.virtualnyc.info/photo_album/flatironarea/pict/md91.jpg

Those look nice where they are, but would look out of place here. Those types of trees would not even grow here and even if they could they take decades to mature to those sizes --

SDCAL
Jul 27, 2007, 4:15 PM
http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/urban-parks/picture.urban-parks.usca35378.html

sorry tried to post a pic of a DT LA park but image not coming out :(

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 6:55 PM
Of course those trees could grow here, this isn't Phoenix. Do those trees need to freeze in order to live???

The point was that it would be nice to have a square that encouraged stopping, and strolling and provided shade as opposed to the desolate lawns we refer to as parks, which have non-indegenous palms that provide no shade in a city that could actually use it.

dl3000
Jul 27, 2007, 9:39 PM
All leafy indigenous trees are like those that grow along the San Diego River pretty much, namely Cottonwoods and Sycamores, but all still need a lot of water.

NBC would be an awesome place for a nice city hall to complement the County Building if the city had the money and then sell the ugly Community Concourse thing. But thats just wishful thinking.

SDCAL
Jul 27, 2007, 10:51 PM
Of course those trees could grow here, this isn't Phoenix. Do those trees need to freeze in order to live???

The point was that it would be nice to have a square that encouraged stopping, and strolling and provided shade as opposed to the desolate lawns we refer to as parks, which have non-indegenous palms that provide no shade in a city that could actually use it.

it doesn't have to do with freezing (although some do only ;ive in areas where there is a freeze), has to do with ground moisture

annual rainfall:

San Diego 10 inches
Phoenix 7 inches
Washington DC 42 inches
New York 43 inches

Our climate is more similar to Phoenix than it is to the Eastern Seaboard where you see these gigantic mature deciduous trees.

Our air humidity might be a little higher in sd than phx due to the ocean, but our ground precip is similar. I used to live in Arizona, and they get the occasional winter storm like sd does, but they also get the summer "monsoon" going on now that brings thunderstorms, which we don't get here, so overall our rainfall is similar (this year our rainfall is actually below what theirs is)

And those types of trees, even if they could survive here, they would not thrive or become that large. have you been to the east coast and seen the trees, for example in New York? The are HUGE, the only trees that I have seen that grow that large here are the eucalyptus trees that have a totally different look but are able to live in the drier climate.

Even if you compare warmer east coast areas to SD, certain things can't live here. Coconut palms are a good example, thrive in Florida, die if you plant them here

Alot of the trees which you see in places like Washington DC's parks are temperate flowering fruits that only survive in that climate, such as the famous cherry trees that blossom in Spring. I was talking to people at the Japanese friendship garden in Balboa Park who said there are cherry trees that have been engineered to grow here but they don't get as big.

Even the deciduous trees that grow along the river in SD that someone brought up are nowhere near as big as those you see on the East Coast or in the midwest.

I do agree our parks could use denser foliage and shade as you mention, I just don't think those types of trees would grow that large here and even if they could it takes decades to reach that maturity. SD is a new city compared to East Coast, alot of those trees have had decades to mature

I am surprised that nobody here ever mentions Balboa Park - -it's not right downtown but it's close and I think it's amazing and it is certainly on the same grandeur as the famous parks of cities back east, even central Park, partly becuase it doesn't try to mimic them and it is unique to SD

spoonman
Jul 27, 2007, 11:41 PM
I used to live in New York SDCAL. I have been to both parks that I mentioned, which is why I'm able to appreciate them. Saying that there isn't enough rain here for certain types of trees is a moot point. We are talking about trees for an urban park. Obviously there would be irrigation. The mentioned trees don't need to be flooded; they need to receive consistant water to keep the soil moist and thats it.

Perhaps those specific trees may not get as big here or would not be the best choice because of the hardship to the trees, but to get back to my original point, it would be nice to have large shade trees rather than palms which aren't really indigenous either. In reality, those large trees in NYC parks are closer to our native trees than palms are.

About Balboa Park, I'm delighted that we have it and we shoud be proud the city had the where-with-all to create it when it did. I believe *part* of the reason people like BP is that it has beautiful shade trees and a certain mystique which you cannot find at our other "lawn & sparce palms parks".

Marina_Guy
Jul 27, 2007, 11:55 PM
^^ Civic buildings cost money.

Yes, everything costs money. We just don't collect money for civic good. That is a 'choice' our leadership has made. There is plenty of money in San Diego, the question is how we allocate it as a community. It looks as if the choice San Diego has made is to keep it in the private sector. Our infrastructure is in disrepair, not because there isnt wealth, it is because our leaders have made the choice not to allocate or at least open a dialogue to allocate some of the wealth to civic concerns (yes, that means higher or more taxes).

Instead we have a city government that is so corrupt and beholden to development interests because that is where the money is...

Sad.

SDCAL
Jul 28, 2007, 2:37 AM
Perhaps those specific trees may not get as big here or would not be the best choice because of the hardship to the trees, but to get back to my original point, it would be nice to have large shade trees rather than palms which aren't really indigenous either. In reality, those large trees in NYC parks are closer to our native trees than palms are.

BP is a good example of how palms can work WITH shade trees. As i mentioned before, the main tree I see growing that big here are eucalyptus which is what the big trees in BP are - - trees that can't grow in the Northeast.

I agree palms are not native to our region, but they obviously thrive here as you can see them growing in places where they were not planted but have spread. I don't think the deciduous trees in NY are closer to our native trees than palms are as you mentioned. You seem to think we don't live in a semi-arid climate, our climate is more similar to Phoenix than it is to New York. We have had like 3 inches of rain in the last year, it's hard to get shadey parks even with irrigation. I would like to see more and I think East Village is planting alot of things like these hybrid maples engineered to grow here, but trees take a loooong time to mature so no new park is going to be that nice and shadey for decades. maybe with advances in bioengineering we will see the options increase with drought-resitant shade trees that grow quicker -

spoonman
Jul 28, 2007, 7:38 AM
Just to show you that there are large shade trees which area native to the area, here are some pics of trees which are native according to UC Berkeley. They look a lot more like normal park type trees in my original pics than palms or anything you'd find native in Phoenix.

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/8266_3261/0951/0031.jpeg

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/8253_3202/3491/0026.jpeg

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/8235_3181/2555/0001.jpeg

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/0000_0000/1101/0291.jpeg

bushman61988
Jul 28, 2007, 5:15 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RTheLoftsat707.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/TheLoftsat707.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RVantagePoint-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/VantagePoint2.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/VantagePoint-1.jpg
Construction is on the 11th floor, with almost 30 floors left to go...this tower is going to be MASSIVE...too bad it couldnt just reach the 500 foot ceiling...


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RSapphire-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Sapphire2.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Sapphire-1.jpg
Construction is already up to the 2nd floor. That parking garage really took a long time...took almost a year to complete, but now the tower is on it's way up...anyone know how many feet? all they say is 32 stories...


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RMark1-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Mark-1.jpg
God, the back of that tower is SO ugly! The renderings lie!


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RLegend-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Legend3-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Legend2-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Legend-2.jpg
It looks like work on the exterior is pretty much finished. So what does everyone think about this tower?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RDiamondviewTower-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/DiamondviewTowerCandyFactory.jpg
They put the sign on the Candy Factory, and they also added some details to the exterior. They fixed this up real nice, though. Anyone know what this building is suppose to be used for?


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RCurrent-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Current-1.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RConventionCenterHotel-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/ConventionCenterHotel-2.jpg
The windows look a little bit better than the renderings, i guess. But God, Why did they have to make this tower a box????


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RBreeza-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Breeza-1.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RBayside-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Bayside-1.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RAria-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Aria2-2.jpg
It would look better without that box thing at the top of the building...they didnt show that in the renderings! But does anyone know why that's even necessary??


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RArpeture-2.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Aperture-2.jpg

bmfarley
Jul 28, 2007, 5:55 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/RAria-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/bushman61988/Aria2-2.jpg
It would look better without that box thing at the top of the building...they didnt show that in the renderings! But does anyone know why that's even necessary??

I do not know for certain, but I'd assume the box-like structure atop are teh elevator shafts and maybe HVAC stuff.

Derek
Jul 28, 2007, 11:08 PM
I think the Legend looks nice, I just wish it was a little taller.

keg92101
Jul 29, 2007, 3:20 AM
We do have Balboa Park which is one of the best parks in the country in my opinion and it a true asset to the city, but other than that the smaller urban parks are pretty bad, discourage people from gathering and look like shit

I don't agree with the earlier post of getting away from "palm trees" and trying to reproduce East Coast parks, our climate is completely different.

Our weather zone gives us great variety in the use of plants and trees that many other areas of the country can't use. I think our new parks should focus on using meditteranean-climate firendly trees such as palms, but do so in a more natural way that encourages gathering and strolling but makes the parks look like they belong here.

Something seems odd about parks that try too look too East-Coastish out of their respective climate zones

Horton plaza broadway entrance is a perfect example of a fake-looking concrete nightmare with palms thrown in to somehow soften the mess, which obviously is very unappealing.

Parks that use warmer-weather plants like palms, bamboo, flowering shrubs like hybiscus, larger bird of paradise/bannana trees/other large-leafed plants, etc generally look better in a more informal Japanese-style landscape that mimics nature with water elements (natural as opposed to fountains), whereas temperate plants like evergreens, maples, cherry trees etc. tend to look better in the more structured and equally-balanced European-style landscapes (take Washhington DC)that are common of public squares back East that include lots of concrete and man-made touches such as fences, fountains, etc.

It seems like downtown projects in the East Village have stopped using palms, as all the new developments are using more temperate looking trees such as the maples engineered to grow here along with the brick buildings to try and make the developments seem more East Coast, but alot of them just don't seem to fit-in here. We can have urban greenery that uses local plants if done right

I think the bayfront area provides a perfect spot to create parkland that will be both appealing, useful and look nothing like the East Coast. Using palms and other sub-tropical plants to create a NATURAL looking and lush pathway for the area that calls for a narrow but long park would be good. I envision it being more of a "strolling' park that people walk through as opposed to a park where people actually stop and gather due to the lack of civic space. As far as use, once projects are built up in that area I think it would get tons of use.

I hate PALMS!!! They are completely worthless and ugly. The great thing about a row of trees is that they create a sense of "place" and provide shade. Palms do neither. From the sidewalk, they seem like nothing more than a brown pole.

Your description of "use" is backwards. The reason why east coast squares, or those in SF (a west coast "eastern city") work so well, is that the park was dedicated 1st, and buildings sprung up around them. If you look at Park at the Park at Petco, it is a good example of this.

Derek
Jul 29, 2007, 4:05 AM
:banana:

Did anyone notice that they've already broken ground on the new Marriott @ the Gaslamp? Beyond the recently completed Trellis condos.

http://live6.truelook.com/timages/live6/ecodb/ecodb_omni_camera1/imgbuf/buf_8079/1185609696790425.jpg

HurricaneHugo
Jul 29, 2007, 8:02 AM
ooohhh

eburress
Jul 29, 2007, 4:29 PM
Many of those East Village towers are disappointing, IMO.


Edit->
For all the people who complain about SD's Vancouver look-alike towers, I would gladly take a bunch of those over these East Village turds!

eburress
Jul 29, 2007, 4:51 PM
Yes, everything costs money. We just don't collect money for civic good. That is a 'choice' our leadership has made. There is plenty of money in San Diego, the question is how we allocate it as a community. It looks as if the choice San Diego has made is to keep it in the private sector. Our infrastructure is in disrepair, not because there isnt wealth, it is because our leaders have made the choice not to allocate or at least open a dialogue to allocate some of the wealth to civic concerns (yes, that means higher or more taxes).

Instead we have a city government that is so corrupt and beholden to development interests because that is where the money is...

Sad.

So, the problem is that San Diego doesn't sufficiently tax its residents and is therefore at the mercy of the evil developers? San Diego doesn't have money for its infrastructure, services, or anything else but if it were to raise taxes, it would be able to pay for all of that as well as grand, World-class civic structures? Huh?

SDCAL
Jul 29, 2007, 6:40 PM
Just to show you that there are large shade trees which area native to the area, here are some pics of trees which are native according to UC Berkeley. They look a lot more like normal park type trees in my original pics than palms or anything you'd find native in Phoenix.

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/8266_3261/0951/0031.jpeg

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/8253_3202/3491/0026.jpeg

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/8235_3181/2555/0001.jpeg

http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/imgs/128x192/0000_0000/1101/0291.jpeg

very nice, i will stand corrected if you tell me where in San Diego county these "native" tree pictures were taken, don't look like any scenes I've seen in the city? Maybe in the mountains of SD county by Julian which have a different climate than in the city?

SDCAL
Jul 29, 2007, 6:47 PM
I hate PALMS!!! They are completely worthless and ugly. The great thing about a row of trees is that they create a sense of "place" and provide shade. Palms do neither. From the sidewalk, they seem like nothing more than a brown pole.

Your description of "use" is backwards. The reason why east coast squares, or those in SF (a west coast "eastern city") work so well, is that the park was dedicated 1st, and buildings sprung up around them. If you look at Park at the Park at Petco, it is a good example of this.

My point was that there is an eastern and western philosophy to landscape architecture, the western favors obvious man-made touches such as symetrical placement of rows of trees/shrubs, straight walkways and a design based on squareness whereas eastern philosophy focuses more on creating an assymetrical garden setting that mimics nature - both can come from planned parks, I agree the park in front of Petco is very East-Coast looking and uses shade-type trees, I was just saying that when sub-tropical plants and trees are used I think they look better in an asymeticral setting designed to look more natural, but that's just my opinion

As for Palms, guess that's your personal opinion. I think they are beautiful trees and can look very nice if planted in the right places.

bmfarley
Jul 29, 2007, 6:52 PM
So, the problem is that San Diego doesn't sufficiently tax its residents and is therefore at the mercy of the evil developers? San Diego doesn't have money for its infrastructure, services, or anything else but if it were to raise taxes, it would be able to pay for all of that as well as grand, World-class civic structures? Huh?I feel you wrote that sarcastically, but I believe I would agree (except the bit about being at the mercy of developers).

I feel that local taxes or fees have been insufficient to provide the quality infrastructure a city of 1.3 million needs. And/or, incoming fees/taxes have been unwisely allocated to provide its citizens necessary amenities, public safety, and transportation infrastructure. So, I am open to, one, more wise allocation of existing incoming revenue...and, two, new fees or taxes to fund infrastructure improvements.

spoonman
Jul 29, 2007, 6:55 PM
.

spoonman
Jul 29, 2007, 6:55 PM
very nice, i will stand corrected if you tell me where in San Diego county these "native" tree pictures were taken, don't look like any scenes I've seen in the city? Maybe in the mountains of SD county by Julian which have a different climate than in the city?

I can't be sure exactly on all of these, but I have seen these trees (top 3) in rural Poway. As for the latter, they can be found in Torrey Pines as well as at the San Diego river.

Hans Gruber
Jul 29, 2007, 8:35 PM
I do not know for certain, but I'd assume the box-like structure atop are teh elevator shafts and maybe HVAC stuff.

You've got good renderings and great angle shots of each new buildings. The camera you've used takes the worst pictures I've ever seen! What are you using for those awful looking pictures? It's a shame to see how your pics turned out after all the hard work it must have been to get those great shots.

The best thing to happen to San Diego was the new baseball stadium. Great town even if the new buildings are starting to look a little bland.

mongoXZ
Jul 29, 2007, 8:37 PM
:previous: Chill. It's just a webcam.

bushman61988
Jul 29, 2007, 8:40 PM
You've got good renderings and great angle shots of each new buildings. The camera you've used takes the worst pictures I've ever seen! What are you using for those awful looking pictures? It's a shame to see how your pics turned out after all the hard work it must have been to get those great shots.

The best thing to happen to San Diego was the new baseball stadium. Great town even if the new buildings are starting to look a little bland.

LOL...that was SO NOT my camera. It's from the downtown webcams that are perched atop of Petco Park, Symphony Towers, and One America Plaza, and that's why the quality is so poor.

Marina_Guy
Jul 30, 2007, 4:16 AM
So, the problem is that San Diego doesn't sufficiently tax its residents and is therefore at the mercy of the evil developers? San Diego doesn't have money for its infrastructure, services, or anything else but if it were to raise taxes, it would be able to pay for all of that as well as grand, World-class civic structures? Huh?

I don't think I said 'evil developers'. Developers take advantage of situations. They are human beings acting on incentives. And I do not think you can honestly conclude that City officials are not influenced by the development community.

I think it is obvious we don't have enough revenue, or not allocated correctly (which is less true) than what is needed for the community. Can you agree with that?

We have a huge infrastructure backlog and we don't spend any funds on civic buildings. (I am not talking stadiums here)... That is a choice San Diegan's have made. Instead the public sector looks to the private sector to build what the PUBLIC would like to have, but can't afford and we get things like the development in the South Embarcadero, and now NBC. And in the process we surrender public lands to private interests with little benefit to the citizen.

The only HOPE out there is the North Embarcadero (where lots of PUBLIC funds are pledged), but already the Port is messing with that grand plan by accepting a poorly designed project at Broadway and Harbor Drive (Lane Field).. (which is the source of the funds they are supposed to contribute to North Embarcadero)

I wonder if San Diegans will ever 'consider' opening their wallets to fund public buildings.. It appears unlikely. When will San Diego ever get a 'Mayor Daley' who is passionate about urban areas and finds the money to make it happen???

Derek
Jul 30, 2007, 7:16 AM
San Diegans are too conservative to open up like that. I hate most San Diegans. Luckily we have cute, tan women.;)


You guys are safe though. :)

ShekelPop
Jul 30, 2007, 7:20 AM
Just to chime in on this public space/private space conversation - lets not forget this is a YOUNG city. its nice to take pictures of New York and Paris and want what they have, and deciding what kind of public spaces we want is an indefinite process that should continue, but these cities are in their gajillionth iteration at this point whereas SD is rebuilding our downtown into a livable city for maybe a second(?) time. it takes time to shape the built environment. we'll get it at some point, but I dont think we need to have increased blood pressure because our city leaders arent on the same page as the public right now. at some point they will be.

eburress
Jul 30, 2007, 6:16 PM
I think it is obvious we don't have enough revenue, or not allocated correctly (which is less true) than what is needed for the community. Can you agree with that?


Yes, it is clear that San Diego doesn't have enough money, and it is the lame-ass people who live here who deserve every bit as much blame for that.

Maybe a stronger mayor/city government could better compel people to get on-board with efforts to encourage growth (e.g., a new airport) and to loosen their purse strings in order to pay for some of these grand civic structures, but our inept mayor/city government can only do so much. At some point, the people who live here are going to need to stop shackling San Diego with their desire to keep it small and quaint.

ucsbgaucho
Jul 30, 2007, 9:05 PM
Ahhhh, to not have a height restriction downtown:

This is SanFran, with renderings of some proposed new buildings, all the way up to 1500'. Granted, that type of height would look waaay out of place in SD, but I dont think 1000' feet would be out of line.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFrumoredshrp.jpg

dl3000
Jul 30, 2007, 10:38 PM
^Wait till the next big earthquake comes along if those are built. San Diego is the most fit for tall buildings as it historically has not as many significant earthquakes. How ironic that we have the shortest buildings.

ucsbgaucho
Jul 30, 2007, 10:45 PM
Just playing around, stealing buildings from other cities.... San Diego circa 2030
http://www.chrisaustinphotography.com/temp/sd_future.jpg

spoonman
Jul 31, 2007, 4:37 AM
^^^That's barely far fetched, just the added height. We have a great skyline that is denser than many cities. It's too bad though, we have a height limit. Otherwise we'd have one of the better skylines.

eburress
Jul 31, 2007, 3:41 PM
Ahhhh, to not have a height restriction downtown:

This is SanFran, with renderings of some proposed new buildings, all the way up to 1500'. Granted, that type of height would look waaay out of place in SD, but I dont think 1000' feet would be out of line.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFrumoredshrp.jpg

1500' foot buildings wouldn't look out of place here if there were also plenty of 750', 1,000', and 1,250' buildings.

eburress
Jul 31, 2007, 3:44 PM
Yes, it is clear that San Diego doesn't have enough money, and it is the lame-ass people who live here who deserve every bit as much blame for that.

Maybe a stronger mayor/city government could better compel people to get on-board with efforts to encourage growth (e.g., a new airport) and to loosen their purse strings in order to pay for some of these grand civic structures, but our inept mayor/city government can only do so much. At some point, the people who live here are going to need to stop shackling San Diego with their desire to keep it small and quaint.

[continuing my rant]

If there are problems with San Diego's city government, it is because they are representative of the people who live here.

SDCAL
Jul 31, 2007, 8:34 PM
Just to chime in on this public space/private space conversation - lets not forget this is a YOUNG city. its nice to take pictures of New York and Paris and want what they have, and deciding what kind of public spaces we want is an indefinite process that should continue, but these cities are in their gajillionth iteration at this point whereas SD is rebuilding our downtown into a livable city for maybe a second(?) time. it takes time to shape the built environment. we'll get it at some point, but I dont think we need to have increased blood pressure because our city leaders arent on the same page as the public right now. at some point they will be.

It's not all about SD being young, other west coast cities are young too and they still have more civic development than us. As others are pointing out, alot has to do with politics and SD has a more conservative "anti-tax" populace than other cities of it's size. While the demographics are changing, the hideous leadership is lagging behind and not changing.

I don't know much about Paris' history, but if you look at the history of New York, even as a very young city it was much more civic-minded and the public held the local government accountable WAY more than San Diego is doing now. It was the direction NY took in it's infancy that, in-part, makes it what it is today, not simply the fact it's an "older" city.

I respectfully disagree about sitting back and doing nothing thinking "we'll get there some day". That kind of laid-back SD attitude is one reason our city politics are so F-d up at the current moment, because the public sits back and is not critical. People who don't like the direction of the local government NEED to speak out, because assuming things will get better as San Diego "matures" is very naive indeed, just my opinion though ;)

laguna
Jul 31, 2007, 10:55 PM
Originally Posted by eburress
So, the problem is that San Diego doesn't sufficiently tax its residents and is therefore at the mercy of the evil developers? San Diego doesn't have money for its infrastructure, services, or anything else but if it were to raise taxes, it would be able to pay for all of that as well as grand, World-class civic structures?

Whenever I hear people talk about not being taxed enough, I immediately get a mental picture of a person who doesnt make much money and would just like to have grand dreams of spending other peoples. Property tax is high in SD, I am buying a downtown condo and just about didnt buy it because the property taxes are so high. Taxes, if too high Stop development, not encourage it. Developers are required to put in infrastructure surrounding their development, I have talked to our developer and know it cost him plenty.

The problem for the airport is mostly, where to put it, more than the bonding etc. However, SD has a lousy bond rating because they spent money unwisely in the past. Dont look to government to create Eden for you.

SDCAL
Aug 1, 2007, 12:06 AM
Whenever I hear people talk about not being taxed enough, I immediately get a mental picture of a person who doesnt make much money and would just like to have grand dreams of spending other peoples. Property tax is high in SD, I am buying a downtown condo and just about didnt buy it because the property taxes are so high. Taxes, if too high Stop development, not encourage it. Developers are required to put in infrastructure surrounding their development, I have talked to our developer and know it cost him plenty.


your mental picture is a sterotype that is not always accurate. I make a decent salary, well above the median, and own a condo downtown. I would favor reasonable taxes in-line with other large cities because I want more civic facilities in my neighborhood, downtown. It's about the community pitching-in to do their part, and San Diego's populace does not contribute in the manner other sizable urban cities do. I'm sure your developer gave a nice sob story from his perspective, but I gurarntee he or she is not hurting in the money department i'm sure

eburress
Aug 1, 2007, 12:37 AM
If San Diego's tax rate is consistent with that of other major US cities, then that's obviously not the answer. The city would need to find some other way(s) to become profitable.

Marina_Guy
Aug 1, 2007, 12:48 AM
your mental picture is a sterotype that is not always accurate. I make a decent salary, well above the median, and own a condo downtown. I would favor reasonable taxes in-line with other large cities because I want more civic facilities in my neighborhood, downtown. It's about the community pitching-in to do their part, and San Diego's populace does not contribute in the manner other sizable urban cities do. I'm sure your developer gave a nice sob story from his perspective, but I gurarntee he or she is not hurting in the money department i'm sure

Amen. San Diego gets what it 'elects'... I'd love to see the 'City' break up. It is too big and if you look at the map, it doesn't really resemble a city. Each council district represents more people than a typical city! And often those 'districts' have many different needs. San Diego is so funny, it won't even vote to raise the TOT tax (hotel tax) and only tourists pay it!

HurricaneHugo
Aug 1, 2007, 2:44 AM
Phoenix's CityScape....525'

http://www.nitnelav.com/CityScapeConstruction/CityScapeNewRender.jpg

Man....

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 4:15 AM
That sucks.

dl3000
Aug 1, 2007, 4:33 AM
Damnit first they get us on population, now the tallest building. It was only a matter of time.

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 4:39 AM
That was no surprise in population though. 515 square miles of sprawl.

dl3000
Aug 1, 2007, 4:44 AM
Yeah but it took a pretty long time before it was official.

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 4:46 AM
Supply and demand, plus as much open space as you will ever need. Or at least until the Colorado River dries up. :rolleyes:

spoonman
Aug 1, 2007, 5:26 AM
Phoenix's CityScape....525'

http://www.nitnelav.com/CityScapeConstruction/CityScapeNewRender.jpg

Man....

But look; even the highrise development is sprawly...lol.

If this project ever gets built though, I'll be happy for them.

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 5:27 AM
The site is being prepped now. Then again San Diego has had a lot of site prepping, but no results! :banana:



:(

El Güero
Aug 1, 2007, 6:47 AM
Hello all,

Was bored and made a "Top 10" by population diagram. I threw in a bonus city. So it is actually top 11. Please excuse the mistakes.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d69/TuGuero/CitiesDiagram2.jpg

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 6:50 AM
You should've put One America Plaza since it's one foot taller. But it's all good, it's only a foot and still shows the height differences well. This diagram makes you appreciate San Diego's height a little more, looking at San Jose's. :(


Still sad though.

sandiego_urban
Aug 1, 2007, 7:08 AM
Just playing around, stealing buildings from other cities.... San Diego circa 2030
http://www.chrisaustinphotography.com/temp/sd_future.jpg
Nice job! We can only hope ;)

mongoXZ
Aug 1, 2007, 3:32 PM
.Little Italy project has a developer

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – Finding a parking spot in Little Italy will be a whole lot easier under a proposed development that would provide up to 700 spaces for public use on nights and weekends.
Just look for the 29-story building at the neighborhood's south end.

County supervisors unanimously selected a developer yesterday for the project – Arlington, Va.-based Clark Realty Capital – which promises a 968-space parking garage, a tower with 268 luxury apartments and 15,000 square feet of retail space.

It would be built on the west side of Kettner Boulevard, between Cedar and Beech streets. The block is currently home to a parking lot and county offices.
County officials hope the project will allow them to shift all of the surface parking at the County Administration Building, a block away on Pacific Highway, to the new parking garage. That parking would be replaced with a public park overlooking San Diego Bay.

“What's exciting is we're really on the path to deliver not one but two good projects,” Supervisor Ron Roberts said. “A rental-residential development with public parking available in Little Italy and what I think will be one of the most magnificent waterfront parks in the country.”

Roberts said he expects plans for the park to come before the county board later this year.

The 29-story project could stretch as high as 300 feet; county officials say it is far south of the flight path at nearby Lindbergh Field and meets federal regulations.

The county will now enter exclusive negotiations on the project with Clark Realty. Under the proposed agreement, Clark Realty would build the $35 million parking garage and give it to the county. Five of the garage's eight stories would be underground. The developer and county would share any revenue from public parking, but county workers would park for free.

Clark Realty would then build the luxury apartments in an adjacent 29-story tower and develop retail shops at street level.

Joe Schafstall, a development executive with Clark Realty, said the company has determined there is a demand for luxury rentals in a downtown housing market flooded with condominiums. He had no price figures for the apartments or the project as a whole.

Clark Realty Capital has had a hand in several local projects, including the expansion of the Manchester Grand Hyatt.

Not everyone is happy with the plan.

Michael Galasso, of Little Italy-based Barone Galasso & Associates, also bid on the project, proposing affordable housing units, retail space and a 613-space parking garage.

Galasso acknowledged that parking is a concern but questioned how the community's streets will handle 700 vehicles arriving each weekday morning and leaving at night under the current proposal. He also said Little Italy is a “working man's neighborhood” that desperately needs affordable housing, not luxury apartments.

Donna Alm, vice president of the Centre City Development Corp., San Diego's downtown redevelopment arm, said she was excited about any opportunity to solve one of Little Italy's biggest challenges: parking.

The proposal will eventually come before the agency for a development permit after several public hearings.

eburress
Aug 1, 2007, 3:52 PM
Hello all,

Was bored and made a "Top 10" by population diagram. I threw in a bonus city. So it is actually top 11. Please excuse the mistakes.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d69/TuGuero/CitiesDiagram2.jpg

Wow...that is depressing as hell.

ShekelPop
Aug 1, 2007, 4:27 PM
Wow...that is depressing as hell.

E, its only depressing in the same way that I'm not a major league ball player. When has anyone suggested or even thought we're a commercial powerhouse on the same level as Philadelphia, Chicago, or even Houston? I like that chart, good idea man.

Also, news from San Diego Metro's Daily Business Report on the civic center, finally some actual movement on the long awaited fantasy (we'll see if it remains fantasy):

CCDC has issued a nationwide call for development partners to explore the possible redevelopment of the aging Civic Center complex Downtown. Officials say this is the first step in an effort to revitalize the area, cut costs, and improve efficiency and service levels for San Diego taxpayers. The Civic Center site is bounded by Third and Front avenues and A and C streets and includes the City Administration Building, Development Services Center, City Concourse Building, Civic Theater and the Evan Jones Parkade.

“Public/private partnerships in redeveloping city administration facilities have become models across the country,” says CCDC Chairman Fred Maas. “Exploring a possible redevelopment project that replaces our aging City Hall, cuts costs, consolidates our operations and improves efficiency levels could be a win for San Diegans.”

The City Administration Building accommodates only 600 employees, and the city has had to lease privately-owned space for more than 15 years. City offices are now located within eight Downtown buildings (four leased), representing more than one half million square feet of leased space. Collectively, more than 3,000 employees work in these properties, which include annual leasing costs of $13.5 million. Deferred maintenance on the City Administration Building alone is estimated to exceed $10 million. With the majority of the leases coming due in 2013 and 2014 and rates projected to significantly increase, official say the request for partners is a proactive approach to evaluate possible costs savings through redevelopment of the site.

“This project is an important opportunity to spark the revitalization of the area north of Broadway and along C Street,” says CCDC President Nancy Graham. “We look forward to receiving proposals and evaluating whether a public/private model could work to solve multiple downtown redevelopment objectives.”

Responses are due Oct. 12. A pre-bid conference has been scheduled for Sept. 6 at 10 a.m. in the Silver Room of the Community Concourse, 202 C St. Additionally, public workshops are planned throughout the process to provide input, feedback and ideas. All dates will be posted on the CCDC Web site (ccdc.com) as they are scheduled.

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 9:12 PM
Finally some developmental news.


I'm glad to hear the Little Italy news. I'm still wishing for Embassy 1414 though. :(


That Civic Center news is great. Now if we can just replace the County Courthouse.

dl3000
Aug 1, 2007, 9:56 PM
If that civic center concept ever gets off the ground, they damn well better do a good job with the architecture.

SDCAL
Aug 1, 2007, 11:08 PM
Phoenix's CityScape....525'

http://www.nitnelav.com/CityScapeConstruction/CityScapeNewRender.jpg

Man....

I thought I read somewhere Phoenix has a 500' limit like SD - guess I was mistaken

Sad, sad, sad at the prospect Phoenix could start building taller buildings.

I think I saw a proposal for Sacramento that is >500' too

we will be known as Shorty SD pretty soon :(

Derek
Aug 1, 2007, 11:14 PM
Phoenix's downtown area is more directly in the flight path of planes heading into PHX. That doesn't seem to make sense that Phoenix can go that high but San Diego can't. :shrug:

SDCAL
Aug 1, 2007, 11:27 PM
here is an older article I found, they must have made some allowances for taller buildings

It pisses me off that Phoenix's mayor was actively (and apparently successfully) looking at ways around the height limit, such as dividing the core downtown into sections instead of putting a blanket height limit that results in a plateu-like skyline like we are seeing here, why the F can't our CRAPPY leaders take the same actions and at least explore??? What's the harm in asking the FAA if >500ft structures east of Petco Park pose a problem?

Phoenix may change building height limit
Plan seeks to protect Sky Harbor flights

Ginger D. Richardson
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 12, 2005 12:00 AM

Phoenix is changing the rules that govern how tall downtown buildings can be in an effort to better protect flights into and out of Sky Harbor International Airport.

The proposed changes, which are still under discussion, could actually allow taller high-rises in some areas of the city's core while reducing height in others. But it's likely that in most areas, the height of structures will be capped at 40 stories, roughly the height of Bank One Center, downtown's tallest building.

"That really is our controlling factor," Aviation Director David Krietor said. "We don't want to build anything that would make it worse." advertisement




The situation poses a unique problem for Phoenix because it marks the first time that two of the city's top priorities have collided.

Sky Harbor, a massive economic development engine, has always enjoyed a privileged position in which its desires came first. But in recent months, Mayor Phil Gordon and the City Council have put billions of public dollars into downtown redevelopment projects in hopes of revitalizing the city's core with hundreds, if not thousands, of full-time residents.

In many ways the effort appears to be working, and that's the problem. Interest in downtown living has skyrocketed, with many developers proposing residential condominiums up to 50 stories high.

All the talk is making the airport nervous.

"All around Sky Harbor is of concern to the Federal Aviation Administration and should be of concern to the city of Phoenix," said Jane Morris, special projects administrator for the Aviation Department.

"Our role at the airport is to look at all of the factors that affect us."

Most of downtown is not in Sky Harbor's flight path. Instead, the concern stems from the fact that some of the proposed developments, if built, could force the FAA and the airlines to change emergency takeoff and landing procedures.

Those procedures are a complicated set of rules and technical guidelines, but the basics are this: On the rare occasion that one of an airplane's engines would fail, there are mandatory actions a pilot must take to land the aircraft safely.

The actions could involve deviating from standard flight paths and are further complicated by such factors as ground and air temperature, aircraft weight and rate of ascent.

An increase in the number of tall buildings around the airport would make it more difficult to get airplanes to the ground safely in emergencies.

The FAA, which works with the airlines to set the procedures, cannot control whether a high-rise is built, but it will make a ruling on whether the building poses a potential hazard.

Such was the situation several years ago when a plan to build the Arizona Cardinals football stadium in Tempe was scuttled because of its height and proximity to the airport.

In most cases, when the FAA rules that a proposed structure poses a risk, cities don't build it. But if a city opts to move forward, the FAA moves in and changes the flight procedures.

"We have to do what is right for the traveling public," said Donn Walker, the FAA's regional spokesman.

That can result in mandates that planes carry less weight in the form of fuel, passengers and cargo, which, in turn, reduces the capacity of the airport.

And that's the one thing Sky Harbor, which is among the nation's busiest airports, doesn't want.

"If there were, theoretically, a lot of high obstacles nearby, we would have to reduce the weight of our airplanes in hot weather," said Carlo Bertolini, a spokesman for America West Airlines. "We'd reduce fuel (and) cargo first, and try to do passengers last. But it would affect our operations."

The current height rules have been in place since 1971 and are severely outdated, officials said.

They allow buildings to range from 250 to 500 feet in the downtown area, with taller structures allowed along Central Avenue, if first accepted by the airport, city Planning Director David Richert said.

And although aviation officials have not worked out exactly what the new regulations will be, they do say that they don't anticipate allowing structures in Copper Square to be taller than about 500 feet, the approximate height of the Bank One Center. The building is the state's tallest.

In some areas of the core, like the Warehouse District, buildings will not be allowed higher than about 22 stories, the approximate height of the Bank One Ballpark and the yet-to-be built Summit at Copper Square condominium project.

That area, ironically, also has a special zoning overlay that is more restrictive than the airport's proposed rules. Those rules state that any building within the district, generally defined as the area south of Madison Street, from Seventh Street to Seventh Avenue, cannot exceed 56 feet, or 80 feet with a use permit. To build a taller structure, a developer needs special variance approval from the Board of Adjustment.

Gordon and others at City Hall are convinced that the proposed changes won't affect the momentum they are trying to create in downtown, even though the regulations appear to have helped scuttle at least one development plan in the downtown area: a proposed 50-story condominium tower on the site of the old Ramada Inn-Downtown.

"They can and they will co-exist," Gordon said. "There's this theory that says, to be a great city, you have to have great downtown skylines. And while I agree that downtown should have the highest buildings in the city, not every building will be, or needs to be, a skyscraper."

eburress
Aug 2, 2007, 3:42 AM
E, its only depressing in the same way that I'm not a major league ball player. When has anyone suggested or even thought we're a commercial powerhouse on the same level as Philadelphia, Chicago, or even Houston?

Not for me. It really does depress me. And I'm not suggesting that San Diego is a commercial powerhouse, but it wouldn't need to be to have a little more height.

Incidentally though, becoming something more than a commercial powderpuff would be the first step towards keeping this city get into the black.


GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH!

northbay
Aug 2, 2007, 4:32 AM
^ i dont see growth as a panacea for a citys $ problems - it can create many other problems in its stead.

good job El Güero on the chart.
i dont find that chart depressing at all (i live closest to san jose of the cities on that list - which compared to san diego is way more depressing). u guys down south are making good progress in creating a good downtown - uve come a long long way. think how far uve come compared to detroit, or even _enter city name_, texas (not to diss anyone - im sure ppl out there disagree).

just remember, a lot of places havent changed much, or if they have, not for the better
san diego is better, im sure we can agree with that

Derek
Aug 2, 2007, 5:11 AM
Well put!

spoonman
Aug 2, 2007, 6:16 AM
San Diego has been experiencing steady incremental growth for many years and that is likely to continue.

Our city in general doesn't like giving the "city" money for projects or anything else, and I can't really say that I blame them. Think Dick Murphy, Duke Cunningham (Congressman, but still SD brand politician), Ralph Inzunza and many others. Many of our politicians are either being investigated, have been investigated, are in jail, or are likely to go there.

Although it wasn't specifically mentioned, I think some people here view the city gov't as not being development friendly. From what I understand Jerry Sanders and the mayors office are quite development friendly. They have tried to help along the Marriott project, Sunroad (but have had to back off a little), and they are trying to get a new office building. It's granola eaters like Donna Frye that try to block development (healthy urban development usually) at every corner.

Donna Frye courtesy of EBurress
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mo/talesfromthecryptdvd250.jpg

Derek
Aug 2, 2007, 6:18 AM
Donna Frye should choke on a cow dick.