SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[eburress]

Originally Posted by SDCAL

This isn’t a political forum nor a thread for Kern county development, but I’ll respond. If progressives are so anti-development, then why are SF and LA light years ahead of SD when it comes to infrastructure and high rise development. Plenty of conservative NIMBYs in this town who don’t want their views blocked or their neighborhoods getting more density.

I agree...I don't know that either side of the aisle is guiltless when it comes to this town's NIMBYism. I really don't get it.

[mello]

SDCAL: Your statement got me thinking. What San Diego lacks that SF and LA have is an area with a large density of jobs combined with housing. DT obviously has the housing density but not that many people work downtown. Then you have the two Navy Bases that combined would be a large employment center but they are separated by a bridge (32nd St/North Island).

UTC/Sorrento Mesa is a HUGE employment center when combined but they are separated by a giant canyon with steep escarpments on both sides. The only way to get between the two is to get on the 805 one exit. They are also sprawling in nature and the "Torrey Pines Research Area" is also up a big hill on Gennesse from the UTC offices.

My point is implementing transit infrastructure in LA is easier you have fairly flat grided streets from DTLA through Santa Monica the core of high density employment and housing for the Metro area. In SF you have hyper dense housing fairly close the the massive job center that is the Financial district and Transbay area where Sales Force tower is.

San Diego due to geography and lack of hyper dense cluster of jobs/housing makes things very difficult. Look at Mission Valley fairly dense area of jobs and housing but has steep hillsides on both ends plus the layout of the streets in MV is a night mare.

Realistically how can we get a decent amount of people out of their cars in this city? The only way is massive amounts of jobs downtown and I just don't see that happening any time soon. Plus isn't transit ridership down with Uber/Lyft and more low income people getting used cars like a 2004 Corolla or something? Maybe when the economy dumps again less people will have extra money for ride sharing services and used cars (and the associated costs) and go back to transit???

[mhays]

Reduced parking requirements would go a long way. A lot of people would love to skip the cost of parking if given the option, as they do in peer cities. This helps create an upward spiral of choosing other modes.

[spoonman]

Damn dude, hoping that people get hurt economically so they can't afford to drive to work. Ouch.

I do agree that SD needs to continue developing more truly mixed use areas. Part of the problem I believe though (going forward anyway) is that demand for office space is not what it once was. Myself and many people I know work remotely. There are now lots of places in SD where there is increased residential density being built, but there just isn't a ton of demand to add office to these places...at least not in an impactful way.

[mello]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Damn dude, hoping that people get hurt economically so they can't afford to drive to work. Ouch.

Of course I'm not hoping for this I'm saying that in 2009 and 2010 many people couldn't buy their teenage kids a used car. Now you have those teens getting cars along with many low income people scratching together enough cash to get a used car. People may just have that little bit of extra expendable income in 2014-2018 to pay for the cars or ridesharing that they didn't have in 2009-2013.

Office Demand: You are correct San Diego really has not been building that much non medical office space. The vast majority of that growth has been in UTC/Sorrento Mesa and Carmel Valley.

Mhays brings up the parking but he comes from a very challenged Geographical area Seattle with its hills and water everywhere. What is their transit ridership like Versus SD? With a quick view on Google Maps they look to have about the same size Pre War street grid that San Diego has but they don't have canyons chopping it up in sections. Also Balboa Park is great but it does kind of cut that section of Uptown to North/South Park in half and itsn't good for transit or biking access.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Yes, if only the agency was larger and had more money Where have I heard that before?

Well then, you've got no reason to complain since CEQA is an excellent example of small government legislation. Not a penny of your tax dollars go towards enforcing CEQA, it's all private individuals with private lawyers and a judge you were already going to be paying for anyway. In fact, CEQA is pretty much the system conservatives propose when asked how they'd prevent companies from pushing so much smog into the atmosphere that schools had to cancel recess for children's safety and so much waste was dumped into rivers they'd occasionally catch on fire (both brutal realities in the 1960s USA, and today in the developing world). Instead of a public agency, we have a method for people/companies to sue for the economic damages a proposed project would cause them.

Because why pay a state employee a hundred thousand dollars a year to regulate the market when we can spend millions on lawyers and delays whenever we try to build anything instead?

Originally Posted by Streamliner

I'm also sitting next to that document. I have a feeling Will O' Wisp is too. Is everyone on this forum in the CEQA business?

If your company requires any form of permit, approval, or assistance from a local government it's in the CEQA business. I'm not even a damn lawyer and I still have to have this phonebook taking up space in my cabinet, because for all the excellent lawyers we do have none of them completely understands all the technical aspects our work requires.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mello

Mhays brings up the parking but he comes from a very challenged Geographical area Seattle with its hills and water everywhere. What is their transit ridership like Versus SD? With a quick view on Google Maps they look to have about the same size Pre War street grid that San Diego has but they don't have canyons chopping it up in sections. Also Balboa Park is great but it does kind of cut that section of Uptown to North/South Park in half and itsn't good for transit or biking access.

Seattle had about five times the per capita transit commute share by comparing central cities via the 2016 ACS.

Both cities have a lot of hills and ravines. I actually find them pretty similar in layout.

Parking requirements are related to cultural expectations and infrastructure, but it's also an independent philosophy...why shouldn't people have a choice, and the ability to save money, reduce their environmental impact, etc.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

Well then, you've got no reason to complain since CEQA is an excellent example of small government legislation. Not a penny of your tax dollars go towards enforcing CEQA, it's all private individuals with private lawyers and a judge you were already going to be paying for anyway. In fact, CEQA is pretty much the system conservatives propose when asked how they'd prevent companies from pushing so much smog into the atmosphere that schools had to cancel recess for children's safety and so much waste was dumped into rivers they'd occasionally catch on fire (both brutal realities in the 1960s USA, and today in the developing world). Instead of a public agency, we have a method for people/companies to sue for the economic damages a proposed project would cause them.

Because why pay a state employee a hundred thousand dollars a year to regulate the market when we can spend millions on lawyers and delays whenever we try to build anything instead?



If your company requires any form of permit, approval, or assistance from a local government it's in the CEQA business. I'm not even a damn lawyer and I still have to have this phonebook taking up space in my cabinet, because for all the excellent lawyers we do have none of them completely understands all the technical aspects our work requires.

Yes, evil conservatives cause smog, unlike liberals who do not drive.

If only CEQA was larger and more well funded, it would be free of corruption. We all know that any agency conceived and managed by liberals would be free from pandering to special interest groups. Good grief man.

[mello]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle had about five times the per capita transit commute share by comparing central cities via the 2016 ACS.

What does "Central City" mean? If that is talking about downtown commuting only then of course Seattle will crush San Diego because it probably has 3 times the amount of jobs in its downtown. Just look at the skyline Seattle has waaay more office space. If it is talking about commuting to job centers other than downtown than that is impressive.

I know this is an urban forum and we all want to see cities have more people using transit. Maybe with SD the traffic simply hasn't gotten that bad yet? I've heard driving in Seattle can be really rough at times. Maybe San Diego is where LA traffic was in 2004 and Seattle was in 2008. We just haven't hit that breaking point yet where enough people say "Christ my commute is horrendous there must be another way!!!". Perhaps that is coming soon.

** Perfect example: LA in 2008 with Measure R. Ten years ago they said resoundingly YES PLEASE TAX US! Lol. So look at all the transit projects that came from that. Traffic in SD simply isn't bad enough for people to be willing to pay for a Measure R type thing.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Yes, evil conservatives cause smog, unlike liberals who do not drive.

If only CEQA was larger and more well funded, it would be free of corruption. We all know that any agency conceived and managed by liberals would be free from pandering to special interest groups. Good grief man.

Man, there you go putting words straight into my mouth. I never said anything about liberals not driving, or conservatives being solely responsible for all environmental ills. Both sides be pretty bad about using CEQA as a legal cudgel, I've dealt with granola munching hippies demanding I treat an industrial permit like a nature reserve because of some microscopic fairy shrimp and I've had allegedly "pro-business" republican elected officials fight me at every turn because my project might slow down their constituents' skyrocketing home values.

It's gotten to the point where I'd prefer a bunch of damn bureaucrats to our current system, at least a bureaucracy is predictable. The city and the state rarely troubles us, work with them enough and you'll know how keep them happy. But all these citizen groups man, you're pulled in a million different directions. I can't know if I'll be sued by a bunch of environmental activists because I didn't include the latest climate change tech (which btw takes so much resources to produce it still won't have paid back its carbon debt in 30 years when I need to replace it) or a set of conservative homeowners worried that we'll attract "the wrong sort of people" to their neighborhood, or even one of my competitors trying to kneecap me right out of the gate. As a pro-business, pro-development voter it's gotten to the point where I have no choice but to support policies trying to get us out of this hobbesian state of nature, if that means supporting increased regulation and taxes then so be it. Call me all the dirty names you want.

Originally Posted by mello

What does "Central City" mean? If that is talking about downtown commuting only then of course Seattle will crush San Diego because it probably has 3 times the amount of jobs in its downtown. Just look at the skyline Seattle has waaay more office space. If it is talking about commuting to job centers other than downtown than that is impressive.

I know this is an urban forum and we all want to see cities have more people using transit. Maybe with SD the traffic simply hasn't gotten that bad yet? I've heard driving in Seattle can be really rough at times. Maybe San Diego is where LA traffic was in 2004 and Seattle was in 2008. We just haven't hit that breaking point yet where enough people say "Christ my commute is horrendous there must be another way!!!". Perhaps that is coming soon.

** Perfect example: LA in 2008 with Measure R. Ten years ago they said resoundingly YES PLEASE TAX US! Lol. So look at all the transit projects that came from that. Traffic in SD simply isn't bad enough for people to be willing to pay for a Measure R type thing.

SD is the 8th largest city in the US but has the 3rd shortest average commute. It isn't 2004 LA, it's 1980s LA, and 1980s LA was not nearly as transit friendly as today.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that SD built practically all of its planned freeways, while LA finished less than half before community concerns forced the while thing to be scrapped. Plus SD has to to have a downtown tech boom like Seattle or LA, most people living in DT actually leave the area for work (the reverse of nearly every other major city)

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

Well said. Accountability to the public is a double-edged sword.



I'm also sitting next to that document. I have a feeling Will O' Wisp is too. Is everyone on this forum in the CEQA business?

They are, whether they like it or not!

[SDCAL]

Originally Posted by iReserve

"...The case study speakers discussed the 7th & Market project, which has been in the works for a few years, and lately gummed up by legal challenges. Those difficulties, according to Jason Wood, are nearly over. Plans for the project include San Diego's first Ritz-Carlton, along with office and retail, and both rental and for-sale residential space.

"We spent 2017 fighting a CEQA lawsuit, which we won," Wood said. "The plaintiffs appealed, and now we're negotiating with them. We're very close to having the lawsuit dropped, and we've returned to the capital markets to get our financing back in order. It looks like the project is a go again."

The Ritz-Carlton project is on a full block Downtown on a site owned by the city of San Diego. In 2015, Wood said, the city selected Cisterra to develop the project.

"There were certain things the city wanted, such as 200 public parking and 200 resident units and 50K SF of commercial space," Wood said. "We decided that we wanted to deliver a project that not only meet those requirements, but exceeded them. We decided to do top-notch."

Part of the early process was approaching Marriott and proposing a Ritz-Carlton, since there were hotels of that brand in San Diego, as well as Whole Foods, though the grocer has since pulled out of the project.”

https://www.bisnow.com/san-diego/new...rage-731-91591

That’s too bad that Whole Foods backed-out. I wonder who will replace them? Maybe Jimbos if there isn’t a place for them in the new HP development?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mello

What does "Central City" mean? If that is talking about downtown commuting only then of course Seattle will crush San Diego because it probably has 3 times the amount of jobs in its downtown. Just look at the skyline Seattle has waaay more office space. If it is talking about commuting to job centers other than downtown than that is impressive.

I know this is an urban forum and we all want to see cities have more people using transit. Maybe with SD the traffic simply hasn't gotten that bad yet? I've heard driving in Seattle can be really rough at times. Maybe San Diego is where LA traffic was in 2004 and Seattle was in 2008. We just haven't hit that breaking point yet where enough people say "Christ my commute is horrendous there must be another way!!!". Perhaps that is coming soon.

** Perfect example: LA in 2008 with Measure R. Ten years ago they said resoundingly YES PLEASE TAX US! Lol. So look at all the transit projects that came from that. Traffic in SD simply isn't bad enough for people to be willing to pay for a Measure R type thing.

Per the 2016 Census ACS, 3.9% of residents of the city of San Diego commuted by transit, and 20.8% of residents of the city of Seattle.

If the city limits were drawn to the same 83.9 square miles I'm sure San Diego would do better...5-6% maybe.

[SDfan]

Write up on SD's tallest buildings in the UT:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...813-story.html

An entire city block in downtown San Diego off Broadway is now a massive hole that echos with the sound of grinding gears.

Rising at least 15 stories out of the ground is a massive crane that is the only real indication that something big is coming at the fenced-off site.

Canadian-based Bosa Development is constructing a roughly 490-foot tall apartment building that will eventually join a group of the city’s tallest buildings, which include One America Plaza, Symphony Towers, Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel and Pinnacle on the Park.

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by SDfan

Write up on SD's tallest buildings in the UT:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...813-story.html

Man I hate the height limit, especially south of Broadway and west of 10th.

[mello]

So is the new BOSA tower going to actually be 490 feet like Pinnacle at Park is? Or is it 490 feet above sea level like Symphony towers is. When you view Symphony from the east coming down B street you can see it actually isn't nearly as tall as the Hyatt, it just looks tall because it is at a higher grade. Hopefully the BOSA tower will be taller.

I almost think Pinnacle looks taller than 500ft maybe it is an allusion but it looks so much taller than Ball Park Village when viewed from Coronado and its MUCH farther away than BPV. I think they snuck a little extra height on it.

I went to Coronado yesterday and man will 7th and Market make a giant impact on the skyline please lets get that baby going. Also when is BOSA going to do his sequel to Pac Gate lets roll Nat. Savina looks much taller than I thought it would be have you guys seen it when coming in on the 5 south??? It looks way taller than Bayside when I thought it would be of similar height.

[Will O' Wisp]

Good news! The Plaza de Panama makeover seems to be going forward.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...813-story.html

[Streamliner]

I'm still confused about the height limits. The limit of 500 feet AMSL makes sense from an FAA perspective, however I that doesn't explain One America Plaza as being 500 feet and Symphony Towers as 499 feet above ground. I always assumed these numbers referred to the architectural height of the building above it's main entrance (which I believe is how the CTUBH defines building heights). These heights are how Skyscraperpage's diagrams and Emporis' database describe these towers.

If the true limit is 500 feet AMSL, then One America Plaza could not possibly be 500 feet. Its entrance has to be at least 10 feet above sea level.

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

I'm still confused about the height limits. The limit of 500 feet AMSL makes sense from an FAA perspective, however I that doesn't explain One America Plaza as being 500 feet and Symphony Towers as 499 feet above ground. I always assumed these numbers referred to the architectural height of the building above it's main entrance (which I believe is how the CTUBH defines building heights). These heights are how Skyscraperpage's diagrams and Emporis' database describe these towers.

If the true limit is 500 feet AMSL, then One America Plaza could not possibly be 500 feet. Its entrance has to be at least 10 feet above sea level.

The author is a bit wrong. There was a change in the height limit ordinance sometime in the 90's. Originally, any structure could be up to 500', so OAP, ST, MGH all reached or were close to 500'. Then at some point, the FAA added ground level into the equation, which is why nearly all structures henceforth are all a bit handicapped. Symphony Tower is 499' and it sits on a 70' hill, which is why it's so prominent from nearly any angle in the skyline. It's actually closer to 570' when factoring land height. ST, OAP and MGH will own the skyline until the airport moves, or if local political leaders will push back on the limit themselves.

[spoonman]

It seems that the height of buildings is beginning to get more attention due to the amount of development and the city realizing that downtown is the city's best bet to cram in more density. One could hope that at some point this will lead to a push for increased height limits. Not counting on this anytime soon though.