SkyscraperCity Forum banner

More new towers....Seattle or SD?

6K views 44 replies 20 participants last post by  SDfan 
#1 ·
I'm not trying to start a city vs city thread but I'm curious to know approximately how many towers are in development for San Diego. The SD threads seem really busy and there seems to be new proposals weekly. Seattle has been very active lately as well and I've counted almost 50 new buildings (10+ floors) for downtown seattle that are in various stages of development (from planned to under construction). Does someone know what the figure for SD is?
 
#27 · (Edited)
TheBellevueBoss said:
it is just a matter of time before someone losses their shirt and alot more on of of these projects and the opportunity for deprecation becomes feasible........
It's already happening, esp. with the conversions from a couple years ago, more or less pricing has returned to late '04 levels in some places.

That said, I highly doubt any major metro that's had a huge upswing in the past 5 years isn't susceptible to what's happening in SD. Incentives? That happened virtually over night circa last Sept. Don't think it can't happen to you. On the upside projects are beginning to pull out, so after a few years the slack will likely be absorbed, developers can't seem to compete with resales.
 
#29 ·
That's true, and pretty relevant to condos. If our fondest dreams come true and we add, wild guess, 7,000 condos and apartments (10,000 residents) from now to the end of 2008, that's only a 20% increase in population for the 1,750-acre "greater Downtown" area.

Of course, those new units will be weighted toward expensive condos, and that market would have to grow at a much higher percentage.
 
#30 ·
bayviews said:
Well, Seattle started out with a lot more towers. San Diego's gone a great job in playing catch up over the past half several years with all the condos. But Seattle still has a much taller skyline. Both seem to learning from the experience of Vancouver BC.

No duh, Seattle doesn't have a height limit.

And Vancouver has been a great model for us and Seattle. In fact a lot of the developers in San Diego are from Canada. The most influential being Bosa.
 
#31 ·
San Diego has a height limit of about 500 feet while Seattle has a height limit of 700 feet of the recent approval of raised height limits, there's no height limit in the downtown business district core, I think. San Diego should have taller buildings than Seattle because San Diego is pretty big city and needs more people in downtown than sprawling out in the suburbs.

The airport has to go move somewhere than being too close to downtown San Diego.
 
#34 ·
San Diego is sooo beautiful, according to pics lol, I want to visit there and just sit on the beach drinking pina coladas all day, oh well, I always have corn to keep me entertained :)

Seattle has always impressed me with their skyline, I believe the metro is around 3.5 million and yet it looks so much more urban and bigger than that? I hope I am close...
 
#35 ·
sequoias said:
San Diego has a height limit of about 500 feet while Seattle has a height limit of 700 feet of the recent approval of raised height limits, there's no height limit in the downtown business district core, I think. San Diego should have taller buildings than Seattle because San Diego is pretty big city and needs more people in downtown than sprawling out in the suburbs.

The airport has to go move somewhere than being too close to downtown San Diego.
San Diego would definitely have a taller skyline if there wasn't a 500' height limit. We currently have three towers at or near 500', and it worries me that many of our proposed/under-construction towers are also at/near the height limit, thus creating a skyline that looks like a freshly mowed lawn when seen from afar. At this time, increasing density, not height, is the only way for us to go.

Moving the airport is a serious matter these days. Voters are suppose to decide later this year on whether or not to relocate the airport once a site is selected. The problem is that our serious choices are either a site 100 miles east of the city, or an active military base (Miramar) that the Navy refuses to give up or share. If you ask me, we're screwed.
 
#37 ·
sd_urban said:
San Diego would definitely have a taller skyline if there wasn't a 500' height limit. We currently have three towers at or near 500', and it worries me that many of our proposed/under-construction towers are also at/near the height limit, thus creating a skyline that looks like a freshly mowed lawn when seen from afar. At this time, increasing density, not height, is the only way for us to go.

Moving the airport is a serious matter these days. Voters are suppose to decide later this year on whether or not to relocate the airport once a site is selected. The problem is that our serious choices are either a site 100 miles east of the city, or an active military base (Miramar) that the Navy refuses to give up or share. If you ask me, we're screwed.
Wish they didn't build the airport right next to downtown in the first place then San Diego wouldn't be screwed right now. I do hope the military base gives up the property so they can build the airport there which will be a good spot since 100 miles is too far away.

Remember Hong Kong? They had an airport real close to downtown, too. The planes had to swerve around tall buildings and then land on the runaway, scary! They erased it and the new airport is about 30 miles or less from Hong Kong. They got a subway/heavy rail linking to the airport to Hong Kong area.
 
#41 ·
about the ocean airport. it isn't a man made island. Its a floating airport idea on massive floating surfaces. I think it is definitely feasible as prven by japanese tests. Of course, not for san diegans who hate the idea of anything groundbreaking, new and bold it is definitely not gonna happen.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top