daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > General > NASF Archive



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


 

 
Thread Tools
Old August 14th, 2006, 07:57 AM   #81
SDfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,650
Likes (Received): 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by sd_urban
Here's a small rendering of the latest version of librarty Tower. I think it looks more interesting than the previous one -




Library Tower was granted redesign approval. Located on the north side of K St between Park Blvd and 13th. (East Village – Lower East Side)

Overview: 41-story tower with a 3-story base and a 6-story building; 38’ and 478’ in height; 158 market-rate and 16 affordable condominiums; 1-, 2-, 3-bedroom units; 10,680 square feet of ground floor retail; 322 parking spaces, including 6 guest spaces, in a 4-level underground garage.

Due to the two fault lines that traverse the site, the building is a tall, slender, rectangular shape. Large expansive light green glass windows with projecting and recessed balconies add depth to this contemporary structure.

A 6-story affordable housing building is punctuated with red and gold colored concrete, purple metal facades, glass canopies, and a metal trellis.

Both the tower and 6-story building offer roof top amenities for residents. And, for the pet lover, a dog park is incorporated within the project.
Oh I want this one to be built badly! The east village needs it.
__________________
Boo!
SDfan no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old August 14th, 2006, 08:09 AM   #82
octosd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52
Likes (Received): 0

I wonder how far that tower will get without the librarry making any significant progress. Its not much of a librarry tower without the librarry.
__________________
Studying on the East Coast, missing the West.
octosd no está en línea  
Old August 14th, 2006, 10:15 AM   #83
chicbicyclist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 0

The tower looks awesome! Is it common practice to segeregate the affordable housing from the the market-rate units? Seems....too caste-ish to me. I guess the glorified "maid room" just rubs me the wrong way.
chicbicyclist no está en línea  
Old August 14th, 2006, 11:07 PM   #84
blueb73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 113
Likes (Received): 6

Are any of these neat looking buildings going to be affordable? or are they all for the "luxury market", which seems to be the only thing that exists these days...
blueb73 no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 01:43 AM   #85
dtsd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keg92101
Yes, but what I am sure that holds true is that 80% of the time the land is not as Prime of a location as the NBC location!
It’s probably better than 80% in the case of NBC because of the very fact it’s such a premium location. The acquisition rate has declined dramatically since federal agencies have been forced to pay fair market values. This land easily has a market value in excess of $100 million. What are the odds some federal bureaucracy can justify spending that kind of dime on prime real estate it doesn’t need, especially at a time federal agencies are contracting? Considering that, it’s extremely unlikely this land would be acquired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicbicyclist
And the Nimbys. Except for the environmentalists, chances are, most of these people are also conservative. Why should thier opinion matter if the property and money is not exactly thiers?
Nimbys aside, it’s reasonable that the public expect the development of public land to be for the benefit of the public, not one particular federal agency.

This is a money grab by the Navy, pure and simple. A true fiscal conservative would be more likely to support a modest structure at an existing secure base rather than an unnecessary gleaming new office tower on prime real estate. We’re talking about military offices here, not Deloitte and Touche. Come on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd_urban
… it's street-level/pedestrian activity and encompassing seawall (think the future north embarcadero plan, but extend it for about 10 miles)
Exactly, the Vancouver waterfront is extremely accessible and running along a very large amount of it they have park space and/or beach. (Those pictures look terrific by the way.) They understand open space is not a “waste”. Also note that the water is not hidden from their public spaces (e.g. enclosed promenades), it’s contiguous with it. Such a no-brainer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keg92101
As long as the Port and the California Coastal Commission are in existance, our waterfront will NEVER look like that. (…) The only reason Manchester will be able to build office at NBC is because the Navy owns the land, and they trump the Coastal Commission and the Port.
My understanding is that the Port also had their hand in the NBC development agreement which is why there are no condos or apartments and limited open space. The Port only wants things developed that they get $ from, which I believe does include office space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keg92101
Because of the Coastal Commission and Port of San Diego, our Bay is lined with parking lots, rental car lots, and heavy industry. They are the ones that restrict uses to tourism and maritime industry ONLY. Not for uses to benifit the population that lives along that coast.
Exactly, and the same thing continues at NBC. There’s very little regard as to what’s in the public’s interest. These agencies really need to be restructured. Hopefully the city council will stand up for the public’s interest regarding NBC.

Last edited by dtsd; August 15th, 2006 at 01:50 AM.
dtsd no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 03:19 AM   #86
sd_urban
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 890
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDfan
Oh I want this one to be built badly! The east village needs it.
Yep, I agree. Library Tower will help to extend the skyline further south and give East Village some needed height.

Quote:
Originally Posted by octosd
I wonder how far that tower will get without the librarry making any significant progress. Its not much of a librarry tower without the librarry.

I was thinking the same thing. Knowing this city, you know there's a "behind closed door" deal going on right now in regards to the new Main Library

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicbicyclist
The tower looks awesome! Is it common practice to segeregate the affordable housing from the the market-rate units? Seems....too caste-ish to me. I guess the glorified "maid room" just rubs me the wrong way.
I thought the same thing. I thought most projects were required to have a certain number of affordable units within each project, but I could be wrong. This might be the first one to actually build a separate building for it, but I'm not sure of that either. Remember all of the hoopla when JMI proposed building a separate affordable housing structure outside of Ballpark Village?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueb73
Are any of these neat looking buildings going to be affordable? or are they all for the "luxury market", which seems to be the only thing that exists these days....
As mentioned above, many of the projects include a certain number of affordable units within them, but I don't think any of them are considered true affordable housing projects, except for maybe SmartCorner.
sd_urban no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 03:32 AM   #87
sd_urban
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 890
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtsd
Exactly, the Vancouver waterfront is extremely accessible and running along a very large amount of it they have park space and/or beach. (Those pictures look terrific by the way.) They understand open space is not a “waste”. Also note that the water is not hidden from their public spaces (e.g. enclosed promenades), it’s contiguous with it. Such a no-brainer.
Exactly. What I loved about their waterfront was how everything connected without interuption for miles. It was possible to walk/bike along the same path for miles and not have to go thru (or even see) auto traffic for a long time. While our setting isn't as spectacular as Vancouver's there's no reason why we don't have a bayside trail that runs entirely along San Diego Bay from Downtown, to Shelter Island, and back down to Chula Vista, National City and Coronado. I also think there should be a bike or walking path across the Coronado-Bay Bridge. Damn, is that asking too much?
sd_urban no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 03:50 AM   #88
Coastal SD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

Renderings of some projects that I hadn't seen posted in the past:

10th & B


KB Home plans to build a mixed-use project with 191 condominiums and approximately 14,000 square feet of retail space on the north side of B Street, between Tenth and Eleventh avenues.

15th & Market Promenade


CJUF II Lankford Market LLC has applied to build 274 condominiums on the west side of 15th Street between Market and G streets.

Grand Pacific Tower


Mixed-use project featuring 86 residential units and approximately 3,100 sf of commercial space.

16th & J


8-story (91 feet high) mixed use residential building with 81 units over 4,100 square feet of ground level retail

Dynasty Lofts


A 20-unit condominium project with 76 parking spaces and 2,900 square feet of retail on the southwest corner of Third and Island avenues, in the Asian Pacific Thematic Historic District.


In a past thread, someone asked about the status of Citi Point on 16th & C. The developer has sold (or is in the process of selling) that site to San Diego City College for constrcution of a parking structure.

As we probably all know, the downtown market is experiencing some growing pains right now with the amount of new for-sale units as well as resale units, but don't expect to see the elimination of all the projects on the drawing board that have not yet broken ground. With high price tags on some condo units, buyers are just sizing up each project, sometime even waiting until completion before actually snataching one up, as opposed to speculators in the past who just purchased product regardless of location/amenities, etc. to make a quick buck. It is going to take more retail sites (the opening of the Albertson's in the East Village will be huge and I'm sure downtown would also embrace a specialty grocer like Whole Foods Market or Trader Joe's), everyday convienences like casual dining (not luxury resturants), and especially public parks to attract people to call downtown home in the upcoming years. If you look at the migration patterns and the population growth expected in SD in the next 10-20 years, it's obvious that downtown will be able to absorb heaps more residential units (although San Diego always has been and always will be a "Beach Town" in my opinion).

Last edited by Coastal SD; August 15th, 2006 at 04:13 AM.
Coastal SD no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 04:10 AM   #89
dtsd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Building a new sports arena has long been discussed and many civic leaders have expressed a desire and expectation that it be built downtown. Due to the plethora of problems dogging the city, all rooted in ineptitude and (mostly) corruption, this was put on hold indefinitely. However according to Friday’s UT, Sanders wants to put together a panel to evaluate stadium issues and possibly a new arena. Of course the Chargers dominated the rest of the article, however it looks like the arena issue may be coming back into play.

“San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has asked for a report from two city staffers about forming an empowered stadium authority that could aid the construction of a new stadium and look into building a new arena, among other responsibilities.”

Full story:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...11stadium.html

This would be an incredible asset to downtown. If only they could do it in a respectable manner; speaking of which, there’s also a write up in the UT about the cover up of the bad Petco bond deal:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...4ballpark.html
dtsd no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 09:02 AM   #90
sharpie20
Wlis
 
sharpie20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 882
Likes (Received): 4

Is the proposed Arena going to be basketball, hockey? or will it also hold rock concerts too? I doubt any new stadiums or sports venues are going to be built in the near future because of all the money problems the city has been having the last couple of years.
sharpie20 no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 10:25 AM   #91
mongozx
Pipe Layer
 
mongozx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 778
Likes (Received): 9

CoastalSD: Where did you find these renders?

This one I like. Lankford always puts out some nice projects . . .
mongozx no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2006, 07:11 PM   #92
sbaumberger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 56
Likes (Received): 1

Here are cleaner versions of some of those renderings:






Quote:
Originally Posted by Coastal SD
As we probably all know, the downtown market is experiencing some growing pains right now with the amount of new for-sale units as well as resale units, but don't expect to see the elimination of all the projects on the drawing board that have not yet broken ground. With high price tags on some condo units, buyers are just sizing up each project, sometime even waiting until completion before actually snataching one up, as opposed to speculators in the past who just purchased product regardless of location/amenities, etc. to make a quick buck. It is going to take more retail sites (the opening of the Albertson's in the East Village will be huge and I'm sure downtown would also embrace a specialty grocer like Whole Foods Market or Trader Joe's), everyday convienences like casual dining (not luxury resturants), and especially public parks to attract people to call downtown home in the upcoming years. If you look at the migration patterns and the population growth expected in SD in the next 10-20 years, it's obvious that downtown will be able to absorb heaps more residential units (although San Diego always has been and always will be a "Beach Town" in my opinion).
I actually agree with most of what you said, except that I think the high-end condo market really is over. True, some of the projects on the boards in the absolute best locations (such as Bayside & Pier) may still move forward, but the vast majority of projects that haven't gotten out of the ground just aren't going to happen. And they won't happen for a lot of the reasons you point out: there so little retail space downtown, and yet new space that is coming on to the market remains vacant. Albertson's will help, but most people going to grocery stores drive so I wouldn't overestimate its impact. CCDC has yet to deliver on the public parks side of the equation and that will be a real limiter on future residential growth as well. The East Village for instance just isn't that great of a place to live right now or in the foreseeable future. You're right, SD's population growth in the next 10-20 years will be significant so it is paramount that the city make the necessary improvements downtown to attract some of the of this growth. SD is at a real crossroads - in large part the airport referendum will determine whether SD remains a "beach town" / "Navy town" or whether it have the opportunity to become a legitimate city.
__________________
BaumbergerStudio - Architectural Illustration
www.baumbergerstudio.com/
sbaumberger no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 12:31 AM   #93
eric_burress
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 27
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbaumberger
SD is at a real crossroads - in large part the airport referendum will determine whether SD remains a "beach town" / "Navy town" or whether it have the opportunity to become a legitimate city.
I couldn't agree more. If San Diego ever expects to progress beyond what it currently is, it absolutely must have a new, world-class airport. Plus, it would be nice to have some height downtown.
eric_burress no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 01:58 AM   #94
keg92101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 46
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtsd
Nimbys aside, it’s reasonable that the public expect the development of public land to be for the benefit of the public, not one particular federal agency.
You are forgetting that this is not simply "Public Land", but rather the Navy's land, and they can and should do what ever is in the Navy's best interest, and get the Federal taxpayer the best deal. They should not do what is in the "Public's" best interest. All the public should expect is the Highest Quality of Architecture, and not get involved in a philisophical debate as to what land uses should or shouldn't be on the NAVY'S LAND.
keg92101 no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 03:31 AM   #95
dtsd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by keg92101
You are forgetting that this is not simply "Public Land", but rather the Navy's land and they can and should do what ever is in the Navy's best interest, and get the Federal taxpayer the best deal.
If the Navy had to pay FMV for this property they'd never build there. Economically it's simply a waste of resources. Like I said, these are military offices, not Deloitte and Touche. By the way, this is the same reason it's extremely unlikely another federal agency would pick up the land through BRAC.

And everybody knows this is not about the taxpayer. If it were, the taxpayer would get a much better deal if they sold the land for FMV, built a much cheaper facility on much cheaper land on a secure base then trimmed their budget by the balance. Of course that's not what's happening.

This transaction has nothing to do with efficiency, practicality and even less about what's in the interest of the public and/or taxpayer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keg92101
They should not do what is in the "Public's" best interest. All the public should expect is the Highest Quality of Architecture, and not get involved in a philisophical debate as to what land uses should or shouldn't be on the NAVY'S LAND.
Any land "owned" by the government is owned by the public. This is not private property, it's public property. There's no debating that.

Any government entity is supposed to serve its citizens, not grab as much as it possibly can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keg92101
they can and should do what ever is in the Navy's best interest
Just above you criticized the Coastal Commission and Port of San Diego for “restricting uses to tourism and maritime industry ONLY”, which of course serves their own self interest, and for not creating “uses to benefit the population that lives along that coast.”

How do you resolve these conflicting statements? If the Navy should do what’s in its best interest, why shouldn’t the Coastal Commission and Port of San Diego also? The role of government is not to serve itself, but to serve the public's interest.

Last edited by dtsd; August 16th, 2006 at 04:55 AM.
dtsd no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 03:57 AM   #96
solongfullerton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 1

I wasn't sure where to post this, but this seems to be close enough. anyways, my parents just purchased a place at Gaslamp Square at 4th and Island i believe. does anyone have any thoughts or experiences with this place? I haven't been down your guys' direction in a while, but im really excited for them to let me use it on occasional weekends for a ball game and/or debauchery. anyways, i live up on the westside of LA and my parents in Riverside county, what should we expect? are there any turnoffs to this area? its seems like everything is absolutely walkable in this neighborhood, if not a short cab or trolley ride away. i'd appreciate anyone's $.02 they would like to throw in.
solongfullerton no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 05:26 AM   #97
chicbicyclist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 0

I'm not aure about that particular development but the area at 4th and Island is very nice. Like you said, very walkable. Balboa Park is less than a mile away, and the restaurants in that area are both diverse and good. The "people life" is probably one of the best in the San Diego metro. Your parents coming from riverside county should expect a drastic change in scenery and more variety(am I saying the obvious too much?).
chicbicyclist no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 06:42 AM   #98
mongozx
Pipe Layer
 
mongozx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 778
Likes (Received): 9

Gaslamp Square isn't for the meek. It's right smack dab in the middle of everything: the ultra-vibrant Gaslamp, the ballpark, the Convention Centre, Horton Plaza, trolley station, freight trains, etc etc all within a a few blocks. If your parents like noise then they've found heaven. Clubs, bars, restaraunts, hordes of tourists, clubbers, and baseball fans at your doorstep practically 24/7. If I had the money I'd buy it as a 2nd home for those hyper-active wild weekends.

I'd prefer the nearby and developing East Village or Marina District, a little more quiet and it's only a few blocks away.
mongozx no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 07:13 AM   #99
keg92101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 46
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtsd
If the Navy had to pay FMV for this property they'd never build there. Economically it's simply a waste of resources. Like I said, these are military offices, not Deloitte and Touche. By the way, this is the same reason it's extremely unlikely another federal agency would pick up the land through BRAC.
The Navy was GIVEN this land to bring the Navy here to San Diego. After being such an asset to our region, why should they have to pay FMV? And, for the record, I'm sure, if FMV is $100 million, Pappa Doug will be paying at least that for that new facility. Also, the majority of people that work there are civilians that work on all of their Southwest Div RFP's. But hey, forget what the Navy has done for the region, and better yet, with Downtown starving for high paying jobs to move into the CBD, lets ship out 1000 of these high paying jobs to best serve the public. Personaly, I want the CBD that I live in to evolve into a true world class CBD.
keg92101 no está en línea  
Old August 16th, 2006, 07:26 AM   #100
mongozx
Pipe Layer
 
mongozx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 778
Likes (Received): 9

Me thinks this is a funky looking building. I wouldn't mind getting it built but I'm sure sbamberger will say "It's DEAD"

mongozx no está en línea  


 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium