HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2001  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 7:30 AM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 748
-

Last edited by SDCAL; Jul 19, 2007 at 7:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2002  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 7:36 AM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 748
^^^ i agree, if the market can't sustain the per sqf cost it doesn't make sense to build the building at all, not to say well 450 ft is profitable but 500 ft isn't. Generally once projects get started and theres no turning back they want to go higher because it is more profitable to have more units if they have already determined a market exists for the product, even if they might take longer to sell. I agree with the posters above that the sole reason for the building heights not being increased is the imposed height limit, and if that weren't in existance some of these projects would certainly be higher
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2003  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 7:44 AM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiegodweller View Post
Are these immigrants from Mexico and Central America wealthy enough to buy airline tickets in large numbers?

Where are they flying to?
a mixed bag, some are some aren't; just because someone comes from Mexico or central america doesn't mean they don't have money, you are playing in to a stereotype that all latin american immigrants are desolate poor people trying to escape across the border to work in agricultural fields and that's not the case. Believe it or not, there are middle income to wealthy mexican immigrants
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2004  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 7:54 AM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburress View Post
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.
true, but the public here are also hypocrits in many cases, they want SD to be a quaint small town but they also don't want to be inconvinienced. This is why I think that even the NIBMYs who want SD to remain a quaint beach town will come around when they start feeling the effects of an inadequate airport themselves - - - unfortunately, this will likely happen when the situation has become extreme and our economy is already hindered by the insufficent airport

Last edited by SDCAL; Jul 19, 2007 at 8:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2005  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 8:02 AM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek loves SD View Post
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.
I hope it happens. I think it is more SD's airport authority is trying to woo lufthansa, not so much the other way around. Lufthansa is concerned about the failed attempt of British Airways SD-London flight that was cancelled. The airport authority is trying to establish that since lufthansa is a star-alliance member the flights would have united airlines numbers making them exempt from the rule that government agencies must use domestic carriers. Since SD has alot of military that could open the market to significant passengers. We'll see if it works. I really think it would work, every time I fly Lufthansa from SD (via codeshare United) the codeshare flight is completely full with people connecting to Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2006  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 2:30 PM
sandiegodweller's Avatar
sandiegodweller sandiegodweller is offline
Resident E. Vil
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCAL View Post
a mixed bag, some are some aren't; just because someone comes from Mexico or central america doesn't mean they don't have money, you are playing in to a stereotype that all latin american immigrants are desolate poor people trying to escape across the border to work in agricultural fields and that's not the case. Believe it or not, there are middle income to wealthy mexican immigrants
In your opinion (or you can base it on facts if you wish), what is the ratio of wealthy "south of the border" legal immigrants streaming north to invest their riches in the US and take advantage of cheap US labor, pro business attitudes and lax environmental laws vs. non-wealthy "south of the border" non-documented immigrants?

We will use a net worth of $100,000 as the baseline. I would say that the ratio is 10,000 to 1.

The next 40 years will certainly show a population increase. One thing to consider is that if you are planning to sell your McMansion in 20-25 years and retire on the proceeds, you may have trouble finding qualified buyers. Population trends indicate that the largest growing segment of the population/workforce will become less educated (by choice) and there will be higher competition for the lower paying jobs translating into less buying power per capita.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/futu...-achanging.pdf
http://pewhispanic.org/topics/index.php?TopicID=4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2007  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 2:38 PM
eburress's Avatar
eburress eburress is offline
Listomatic on iTunes
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCAL View Post
true, but the public here are also hypocrits in many cases, they want SD to be a quaint small town but they also don't want to be inconvinienced. This is why I think that even the NIBMYs who want SD to remain a quaint beach town will come around when they start feeling the effects of an inadequate airport themselves - - - unfortunately, this will likely happen when the situation has become extreme and our economy is already hindered by the insufficent airport
Well, I hope you're right, but I think many people here want SD's economy hindered. Plus, even if things got to the point where the vast majority of people wanted a new airport, they still wouldn't want it anywhere near their homes, so we run into some of the other problems like cost and available land.

There are too many reasons why an airport isn't going to happen, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2008  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 2:53 PM
ucsbgaucho ucsbgaucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
The average person is going to say NO to a new airport because they'll never feel the effects of an airport that is too small and too crowded. How often does the average person fly? twice a year maybe? And that's usually maybe once in the summertime and once during the holidays. Delays and stuff during the holidays they'll play off as just the normal holiday rush, in the summertime, it must be all the vacationers. So to them, the delays don't make much of a difference because they only experience them once or twice a year. Unfortunately, those are the people that have the vast majority of the power and voice in this matter. The business travelers that come in and out of san diego once a week know exactly why a new airport is needed, but they are such a small percentage, they won't get their way.

I would think that a new airport out at sea wouldn't necessarily need a public vote, or a countywide ballot measure... I dont know. Same reason why a new airport out in the desert would be fairly easy, it directly doesn't affect THAT many people with construction and land. In the desert, you have to use eminent domain to make way for the HSR line, but out to sea, it would probably be easier.... except for the Coastal Commission of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2009  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 2:57 PM
ucsbgaucho ucsbgaucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
Hotel in Ballpark Village alarms housing advocates
By Jeanette Steele
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 19, 2007


DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – The biggest hotel in San Diego County is being proposed for one of the city's most-discussed downtown properties: Ballpark Village, where people expected to see swanky condominiums, offices, shops and 35,000 square feet of affordable housing next to Petco Park.

Drawings of a $1 billion, 1,650-room Marriott convention hotel are being circulated by JMI Realty, the property development company of Padres Chairman John Moores.

The 500-foot-tall, twin-tower hotel already has attracted critics. Not only had JMI earlier envisioned condominiums, it signed a 2005 agreement with a labor and affordable-housing coalition saying there was “no intention” of putting a hotel there.

Some coalition members are crying foul. They say the roughly 1,900 hotel positions created will be “poverty jobs” that will create more names for the city's affordable-housing lists. The agreement with JMI said most Ballpark Village employees would earn $10 an hour plus benefits, or more, but it's unclear whether that requirement would affect the hotel, they said.

“We obviously will oppose this hotel as vigorously as possible unless they pay a living wage,” said Richard Lawrence, co-chairman of the San Diego Affordable Housing Coalition.

Others, including city officials, are wondering what the change means for the rest of the 7-acre Ballpark Village site and what's ahead for the affordable housing promised there.

Controversial project
Ballpark Village became controversial in late 2005 after a city-brokered deal requiring JMI and its partner Lennar to include low-income housing in the project was on the verge of approval by the San Diego City Council. The developers and the labor-affordable housing coalition suddenly came forward with an alternate scenario that called for more affordable housing – but it would be elsewhere in East Village.


Advertisement
The compromise, after much rancor, was to put 35,000 square feet of affordable units at Ballpark Village as well as build some off-site housing. The off-site housing is now under construction.

JMI Realty President John Kratzer says his company hadn't planned a hotel until Marriott approached with a deal worth pursuing. The spirit of the agreement with the labor coalition, Kratzer said, was that if JMI changed its mind about a hotel, the coalition was free to oppose it.

“If the city doesn't want the hotel, we won't build it,” Kratzer said this week. “But it seems to me if there was an opportunity to generate $13 million or $14 million in (hotel taxes) for the city, that would be something they are interested in.”

He also said JMI is not backing away from the on-site affordable housing requirement. It will be built elsewhere on the 7 acres, as was always expected, Kratzer said.

Marriott International, based in Washington, D.C., has at least 15 properties in San Diego, including two hotels being built or proposed in downtown separate from Ballpark Village. It declined to comment on the latest project.

Rooms are welcomed
The Marriott project, which includes 60 condominiums, tops the list of at least five large hotels in the downtown pipeline. Hospitality industry officials say San Diego's booming convention business can use the beds, and the new supply might push down room rates in what has become an extremely expensive market.

“We typically are universally supportive of advancing the room inventory,” said Steve Johnson, San Diego Convention Center vice president. “It adds flexibility for our sales team to book business.”

Namara Mercer of the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association said, “When you have an increase in room inventory, the average daily room rates may go down. But the (hotel tax) to the city will go up.”

It is also a possible signpost of the drooping housing scene downtown. Other projects once planned to be condominiums have stalled or the sites are up for sale.

With 1,650 rooms, the proposed Marriott, once completed, would be the county's largest hotel by about 25 units. The Manchester Grand Hyatt on Harbor Drive has 1,625 rooms.

Marriott calls its proposal a “convention hotel,” with 175,000 square feet of meeting space. A Hilton being built on port land across Harbor Drive follows the same concept, with 1,200 rooms and 165,000 square feet of convention space.

Johnson said the meeting space in these hotels is too small to compete with the convention center and won't derail its argument for expansion. Center officials have said the convention complex, which has 1.1 million square feet of meeting space, runs at capacity and needs more room.

Information sought
The Marriott proposal has a long way to go before heads could hit pillows.

The Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment agency, last week asked JMI for more information about how the hotel would affect development on the rest of the site. The developer also is asking for at least six points of departure from the site's master plan, which will require CCDC approval.

The Ballpark Village plan calls for 300,000 square feet of office space, 115,000 square feet of retail or commercial space and 35,000 square feet of affordable housing on the site. It allows the developer to decide where to put the affordable housing and whether to build condominiums or hotels. Kratzer said his company intends to meet those guidelines.

CCDC Chairman Fred Maas said he is open to considering the hotel, but that the affordable-housing commitment must be honored.

The Center on Policy Initiatives, a pro-labor think tank that was part of the Ballpark Village coalition, also is worried about commitments.

“We made a deal with them, and now they want to redo this deal,” research director Murtaza Baxamusa said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2010  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 3:03 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
is a loser.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,102
Someone from the California forum told me to come here to post information about a San Diego meet we're doing on August 11. Details in the link to the thread below:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=134463
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2011  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 5:58 PM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiegodweller View Post
In your opinion (or you can base it on facts if you wish), what is the ratio of wealthy "south of the border" legal immigrants streaming north to invest their riches in the US and take advantage of cheap US labor, pro business attitudes and lax environmental laws vs. non-wealthy "south of the border" non-documented immigrants?

We will use a net worth of $100,000 as the baseline. I would say that the ratio is 10,000 to 1.

The next 40 years will certainly show a population increase. One thing to consider is that if you are planning to sell your McMansion in 20-25 years and retire on the proceeds, you may have trouble finding qualified buyers. Population trends indicate that the largest growing segment of the population/workforce will become less educated (by choice) and there will be higher competition for the lower paying jobs translating into less buying power per capita.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/futu...-achanging.pdf
http://pewhispanic.org/topics/index.php?TopicID=4
I am not arguing about your ratios or anything, I was just making a point that the population will be increasing and that translates to a need for more air paasengers to be accomodated, even if a lot of immigrants are poor. Bangkok just built an airport that i must say is extremely nice, I was in it 3 weeks ago and that city sees alot of wealthy foregners moving in as well as scores of dirt-poor refugees from the countryside which percentage-wise out-number the "wealthier people" by alot yet it is growing as a major air hub in SE Asia. I was in Bombay/Mumbai as well, and there are plans for a new airport because theirs is pretty gross and decaying. Both these cities have far more refugee influx of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum percentage-wise than San Diego does when you look at their immigration figures, yet their air passenger index is increasing with the population growth. You make it sound like the need for airline travel will decrease because our city is going to become poorer with uneducated people who don't travel by plane, and these people will stop the demand for increased air travel, I don't buy it because it hasn't happened elswhere where refugees contribute FAR greater percentage-wise to the immigrant populations than they do here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2012  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 7:39 PM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
A floating airport still seems a bit far-fetched to me. It'll be interesting to see how the idea moves forward.

I'd agree that it would be more practical to have passenger baggage check-in/pick-up and screening, and what-not, at a land-based location. A floating airport does not need lookee-loos getting in the way.

Passengers and luggage should then proceed to the floating facility along a secured path so security issues are not a concern. If it's 10 miles off the coast... it should also be fast to cut down on time. If the amount of time it takes between check-in and take-off is too extended... the less attractive of a service it becomes for users. I am afraid a ferry driven method would be too slow. A ferry also looks more vulnerable to variations in weather and quite possibly security.

As for some type of rail service to transport users, baggage, employees, and airport supplies/freight to the floating facility... that would be exhorbantly expensive. I'll guess $500m per mile to construct. 10 miles and we're talking $5 billion for the rail line. I am sure travel time to the airport would be at least 5 minutes, maybe 10 or more depending on the design speed and technology used.

All-in-all, I'd favor rebuilding a replacement to Miramar for the military at a site of their choosing (other than Lindbergh)... and then once the military is functional elsewhere... to redevelop Miramar into a commercial airport. In the absence of any solution really in sight, certianly nothing before 2015 or 2020... I remain steadfast about support for California High Speed Rail as an option to reduce demand for take-offs and landings for in-state air travel between the major metropolitan areas and push-out the projected date when Lindbergh would reach its expected capacity.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.

Last edited by bmfarley; Jul 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2013  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 8:16 PM
Derek's Avatar
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post

All-in-all, I'd favor rebuilding a replacement to Miramar for the military at a site of their choosing (other than Lindbergh)... and then once the military is functional elsewhere... to redevelop Miramar into a commercial airport. In the absence of any solution really in sight, certianly nothing before 2015 or 2020... I remain steadfast about support for California High Speed Rail as an option to reduce demand for take-offs and landings for in-state air travel between the major metropolitan areas and push-out the projected date when Lindbergh would reach its expected capacity.
I agree 110%.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2014  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 10:42 PM
HurricaneHugo's Avatar
HurricaneHugo HurricaneHugo is offline
Category Five
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho View Post
The 500-foot-tall, twin-tower hotel
&@#^($!(*&($@!^%@
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2015  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 10:54 PM
spoonman's Avatar
spoonman spoonman is offline
SD/OC
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,274
Oh goody, twin towers

I think our city would win in a thread about which city has the most sets of twin towers (not that it's a good thing of course). New York might win though because of all the commieblocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2016  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 11:37 PM
<ak/>'s Avatar
<ak/> <ak/> is offline
Unregistered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
As for some type of rail service to transport users, baggage, employees, and airport supplies/freight to the floating facility... that would be exhorbantly expensive. I'll guess $500m per mile to construct. 10 miles and we're talking $5 billion for the rail line. I am sure travel time to the airport would be at least 5 minutes, maybe 10 or more depending on the design speed and technology used.
according to Float Inc. it is a bit less than $500 per mile (note: their proposal is 3 miles off-shore)

Quote:
By way of comparison, the cost of the recently completed, sunken tunnel between Denmark and Oresund, Sweden was 483.5 million for 3.5 kilometers. It is not valid to assume a linear cost per mile comparison, longer tunnels should cost less per mile, but even ignoring that, using the 30% reduction for floating, and considering that the Oresund tunnel has two land transitions, the 540M estimate is reasonable.
btw, their rendering:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2017  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 11:53 PM
sandiegodweller's Avatar
sandiegodweller sandiegodweller is offline
Resident E. Vil
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCAL View Post
I am not arguing about your ratios or anything, I was just making a point that the population will be increasing and that translates to a need for more air paasengers to be accomodated, even if a lot of immigrants are poor. Bangkok just built an airport that i must say is extremely nice, I was in it 3 weeks ago and that city sees alot of wealthy foregners moving in as well as scores of dirt-poor refugees from the countryside which percentage-wise out-number the "wealthier people" by alot yet it is growing as a major air hub in SE Asia. I was in Bombay/Mumbai as well, and there are plans for a new airport because theirs is pretty gross and decaying. Both these cities have far more refugee influx of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum percentage-wise than San Diego does when you look at their immigration figures, yet their air passenger index is increasing with the population growth. You make it sound like the need for airline travel will decrease because our city is going to become poorer with uneducated people who don't travel by plane, and these people will stop the demand for increased air travel, I don't buy it because it hasn't happened elswhere where refugees contribute FAR greater percentage-wise to the immigrant populations than they do here.
I did go off on a tangent. I actually don't have an opinion on the airport except that I don't think that the desert or ocean floating ideas have any merit.

Unfortunately, I do believe that the overall population will get younger, poorer and less educated in the next 25-40 years (based on population trends) in all of the US and especially in Southern California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2018  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 11:55 PM
sandiegodweller's Avatar
sandiegodweller sandiegodweller is offline
Resident E. Vil
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by <ak/> View Post
according to Float Inc. it is a bit less than $500 per mile (note: their proposal is 3 miles off-shore)



btw, their rendering:

I can't see Kevin Costner in this rendering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2019  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2007, 5:49 AM
Crackertastik Crackertastik is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 204
Regarding the construction of a multi staged airport, with parking and security and checkin in a location separate from the actual terminals and planes... the first one/two stages would be identical regardless of whether the airport were in the ocean or in the desert.

1. you would have residents of their area of the county park and take express transit to the main security and check in hub. (residents could also drive straight to it and park if they'd prefer)

2. hub would take luggage and transport it to the airport where you would just await your check in time and get on and get going.



The only question is which of the final spots for the airplanes and main hub is preferable. This debate is on the final location of the runways and planes.

Desert:
Pros- on land, land would be cheap, lack of residential noise, room for expansion, likely safe approach, good level of security
Cons- to create a route to the airport you would either have to go through the hilly east county or around the hills. It would take a long time, and track length would increase cost. Not ideal "entrance" to san diego.

Ocean:
Pros- great welcome to san diego, innovative and instantly world famous, high security protection, infinite room for expansion, no noise for residents, easiest approach in the world completely flat, possible environmental pluses
Cons- possibly very expensive, unproven at this scale technology, the how to get there debate, tunnel etc., possible environmental dangers
__________________
No offense Lindbergh, but get outta here! We got 700 footers to put up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2020  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2007, 5:55 AM
Derek's Avatar
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,340
I actually think placing all the security/check-in on land will actually pose a greater threat to security.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.