San José Development News - Page 734 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > United States > West Coast and Interior West > Local Forums > San Francisco Bay Area

San Francisco Bay Area » projects and proposals | transportation and infrastructure


Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 15th, 2017, 10:21 PM   #14661
quadshock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,150
Likes (Received): 671

San Jose has so much room to grow density. Creating neighborhoods worth visiting even just up to current max limits should be higher priority than making downtown taller. There is literally no reason to visit like 85-90% of the city by area
__________________
quadshock no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 16th, 2017, 01:26 AM   #14662
cardinal2007
Registered User
 
cardinal2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Downtown San José, CA
Posts: 3,108
Likes (Received): 2484

Marshall Squares - Jul 12, 2017







__________________
cardinal2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 01:56 AM   #14663
bobby_guz_man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,809
Likes (Received): 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
I understand thr Urban Villages concept... it is even brought up quite often in my Urban Planning classes at San Jose State. But then, if there is nowhere to go for SJC, then it becomes even more difficult to find a suitable location to develop new skyscrapers... and I don't think changing the flight patterns will help in that endeavor, either.
Even 400-footers would do well for the city's skyline.

That said, the airport location isn't a top priority because tall buildings don't have to be in Downtown. This is why I'm excited about the Volar building (obviously not too excited about the building design itself) as it establishes a new beachhead in another part of the City for high-rises.

100 years into the future, I expect to see high-rises everywhere in SF and SJ, not just their respective Downtowns. SJC only impacts heights in DT, but it isn't going to impact height in, say, East or West SJ, or even further south along Monterey Rd south of Alma.
__________________

CTA25, JoshuaSantos liked this post
bobby_guz_man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 16th, 2017, 01:57 AM   #14664
bobby_guz_man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,809
Likes (Received): 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by quadshock View Post
There is literally no reason to visit like 85-90% of the city by area
I think this is the same for most American cities, actually.
bobby_guz_man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 02:17 AM   #14665
quadshock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,150
Likes (Received): 671

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man View Post
I think this is the same for most American cities, actually.
Yes but it is a true signal for making our city the best it can be. I think when people can describe their neighborhood with a name and other members of the city immediately know where it is, what it's known for, the last time they've been there, etc then SJ will truly be great
__________________
quadshock no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 02:26 AM   #14666
DarkEconomist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,482
Likes (Received): 903

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
But then, if there is nowhere to go for SJC, then it becomes even more difficult to find a suitable location to develop new skyscrapers
Within DTSJ, yes, it becomes more difficult. But that doesn't preclude sites outside of or affected by the OEI or Part 23 areas. For instance, Santana Row. Alviso also is far enough that 400+ foot skyscrapers would be allowed. Also, AFAIK, there's also the area around the LRT Metro stop, that triangle of 101, 87, and 880.
__________________

bobby_guz_man liked this post
DarkEconomist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 02:39 AM   #14667
DarkEconomist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,482
Likes (Received): 903

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondHood View Post
Food trucks!
Two hundred fifty food trucks, parked on the grass of Discovery Meadow.
Mobile microbreweries.
Kosher bacon-wrapped hot dogs.
Truffle-flavored ice cream.
Pate de foie gras on a corn tortilla.
Anything you could possibly want, all within easy walking distance!
Every day? Even so, if were talking about a full build-out of the land as offices, we're talking a lot of SOV commuters. Let's actually give this some numbers:
Assume 6,000 employees
Assume most drive solo (for causes I stated previously), so 5,500 SOV commuters
11,000 SOV trips generated daily
Typical commute in SJ in 2015 was 6.4 miles (MarketWatch)
That's 140,000 vehicle miles traveled every day from this one development
DarkEconomist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 05:29 AM   #14668
Davodd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: San Jose
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 407

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
... is it possible to relocate SJC somewhere else to allow Downtown to thrive with taller structures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjn View Post
Lolno. It's been expanded and expanded, with more expansions down the line. Even if, where? Moffett? Never going to happen. Reid-Hillview? Too tiny.
We got a bunch of Debbie Downers on this board.

Having SJC as close to Diridon as it is - is a major benefit for DTSJ's "grand central station of the west" dreams. It's the ultimate mutli-modal: light rail, Subway, commuter rail, HSR, city bus, interstate bus, and ... air... all we need is a light rail loop connecting the SJC to it through the Santa Clara station.

As for building heights... most of that is city code and not necessarily the FAA, as far as I understand.

The FAA height restriction authority ends by federal statute 10,000 feet (1.8 miles) of an airport - which is almost exactly the distance between the southern tip of SJC and Diridon station. Now, the FAA *does* have additional federal authority to block things from being built in the airspace that interferes with existing flight paths.

To avoid that, the FAA guidelines ask that buildings be no higher than 250 feet at the 10,000 feet away mark. And ... under it's *most strict* guidelines, it sets up an inverted cone and recommends city zoning only allow one additional foot in height for every additional 50 feet farther away when in a direct flight path, and 1 vertical for per 20 feet away for other areas. FAA Model Zoning Ordinance

DTSJ proper is almost entirely outside of the 10,000 foot away mark (which is approximately at Santa Clara Street), as far as I know. Definitely everything south of San Fernando is outside of that 250' or shorter zone.

So, if I am reading that model ordinance correctly ... roughly... under FAA current guidelines, If SJ maxes out height limits to the FAA model zoning ordinance, then the height limits would be as follows along certain streets in the DTSJ area south of SJC: (NOTE: I believe that the SJ current height ordinance limit is 300 feet, maximum.)

Santa Clara Street:
Strict flight path :250 feet height limit
Otherwise: 250 feet height limit

San Fernando
Strict flight path : 270 feet
Otherwise: 300 feet

Park Ave
Strict Flight Path: 290 feet
Otherwise: 350 feet

San Carlos:
Strict Flight Path: 310 feet
Otherwise: 400 feet

San Salvador/Auzerais:
Strict flight path: 330 feet
Otherwise: 450 feet

Woz Way:
Strict flight path: 340 feet
Otherwise: 475 feet

Then again, I am likely missing something as I am no expert on zoning law.

I look forward to folks correcting my numbers and distance guesstimates.
__________________

CTA25, RaymondHood, Dirk_Birkin liked this post

Last edited by Davodd; July 16th, 2017 at 10:17 AM.
Davodd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 06:04 AM   #14669
cardinal2007
Registered User
 
cardinal2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Downtown San José, CA
Posts: 3,108
Likes (Received): 2484

Modera - Jul 12, 2017



__________________

Davodd, gillynova, sjn, cl76, aphelion2100 liked this post
cardinal2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #14670
RaymondHood
Retired Mohawk Ironworker
 
RaymondHood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 697
Likes (Received): 345

Why are there currently so many major development proposals for DTSJ, but so little funding for them?

Are the developers unrealistically exuberant, or are the lenders severely a n a l -retentive?

DarkEconomist: My food truck proposal was based primarily on one menu item -- tongue in cheek
__________________

CTA25, DarkEconomist liked this post
RaymondHood no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 09:02 AM   #14671
dirt patch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,321
Likes (Received): 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondHood View Post
Why are there currently so many major development proposals for DTSJ, but so little funding for them?

Are the developers unrealistically exuberant, or are the lenders severely a n a l -retentive?

DarkEconomist: My food truck proposal was based primarily on one menu item -- tongue in cheek
explained in my posts but only to be ignored. Hate to say I'm so right on about this from the very, very beginning(Sept. 2015)
dirt patch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 10:34 AM   #14672
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 20,437
Likes (Received): 12431

Geeze, man. Stop being so overconfident. You never know, things can change... as one member noted earlier, San Jose does have quite a lot of opportunities to densify away from the traditional downtown that (if properly assessed) Alviso could be developed into something more than just being a neighborhood tucked far away from CA-237. What I suspect is the main culprit is the current policies that encourage sprawl zoning rather than investing in densification, especially in some neighborhoods where it can be justified. And the biggest factor: money.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

Pittsburg • Piedmont • Petaluma • Palo Alto • Pacifica • Orinda • Oakley

CTA25, AMRivlin, JoshuaSantos liked this post
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 12:02 PM   #14673
gillynova
Moderator
 
gillynova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Milpitas
Posts: 1,140
Likes (Received): 1183

Photo near DTSJ that I took this week when playing a softball game lol



SJSC towers would look well from this angle if they start it
gillynova no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 07:28 PM   #14674
dirt patch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,321
Likes (Received): 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Geeze, man. Stop being so overconfident. You never know, things can change... as one member noted earlier, San Jose does have quite a lot of opportunities to densify away from the traditional downtown that (if properly assessed) Alviso could be developed into something more than just being a neighborhood tucked far away from CA-237. What I suspect is the main culprit is the current policies that encourage sprawl zoning rather than investing in densification, especially in some neighborhoods where it can be justified. And the biggest factor: money.
. The residents won't allow very high towers built in their areas. 5 to 8 story probably will be built in many places in San Jose. I'm just confidence that downtown, other than Adobe new tower, will not see even one tower being built, knowing how financial investors are in San Jose. I really, really want to see lots of towers get underway downtown and hope I would be wrong on this. I know how these investors are about downtown(too conservative, skittish and not willing to open their wallets on the very slightest fear they have about downtown's real estate climate). Google, on the other hand, may be too complex for it to happen and especially when the community demand so much from it. Time will tell.
dirt patch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 07:44 PM   #14675
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 20,437
Likes (Received): 12431

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirt patch View Post
. The residents won't allow very high towers built in their areas. 5 to 8 story probably will be built in many places in San Jose. I'm just confidence that downtown, other than Adobe new tower, will not see even one tower being built, knowing how financial investors are in San Jose. I really, really want to see lots of towers get underway downtown and hope I would be wrong on this. I know how these investors are about downtown(too conservative, skittish and not willing to open their wallets on the very slightest fear they have about downtown's real estate climate). Google, on the other hand, may be too complex for it to happen and especially when the community demand so much from it. Time will tell.
Remember: building anything in any city is a risk, a gamble undertaken by businesses who want to put their best feet forward to their potential customers. It does not matter if it is a warehouse the size of a high school football field or a tower the height of Salesforce. They invest money in the hope their presence will draw a lot more people to their offices and factories and create multiple effects to the local and regional economy.

Also remember: BART is coming to San Jose, so that will create an economic multiplier, which will encourage further growth and densification along the line (in this case, downtown and along El Camino Real). Again, such developments are dependent upon policy updates which, with adequate consultation from both businesses and residents, can encourage San Jose, Milpitas, City of Santa Clara, and beyond to densify their communities even further (and move away from suburban developments).
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

Pittsburg • Piedmont • Petaluma • Palo Alto • Pacifica • Orinda • Oakley

CTA25 liked this post
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 07:46 PM   #14676
JoshuaSantos
thesanjoseblog.com
 
JoshuaSantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,072
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
Photo near DTSJ that I took this week when playing a softball game lol



SJSC towers would look well from this angle if they start it
That is an interesting view of Downtown. What is the name of that park?
__________________
www.thesanjoseblog.com
JoshuaSantos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 07:48 PM   #14677
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 20,437
Likes (Received): 12431

@Dirt Patch so you're pointing at NIMBYism as part of the problem, which I also understand. But I don't think the amount of NIMBYism in San Jose is as bad as that found in Marin County where we serioisly limit the amount of development to select areas, including the 101 corridor, eastern section of Sir Francis Drake, and old-growth communities, leaving us with around 50% of the land open for farming and grazing. Heck, some people here were terrified at SMART at first when construction was about to start... yet now, the trains are running thanks to the encouragement from Sonoma County to tell Marin that both counties will benefit from a train service.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

Pittsburg • Piedmont • Petaluma • Palo Alto • Pacifica • Orinda • Oakley

AMRivlin liked this post
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 08:15 PM   #14678
gillynova
Moderator
 
gillynova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Milpitas
Posts: 1,140
Likes (Received): 1183

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaSantos View Post
That is an interesting view of Downtown. What is the name of that park?
Backesto Park! I kept hearing how ghetto this park was but it's actually NOT so bad. But yeah, it is quite an interesting view when you fly a drone up here.
__________________

JoshuaSantos liked this post
gillynova no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 08:57 PM   #14679
Davodd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: San Jose
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 407

Quote:
The plan Google is discussing with San Jose city officials involves 6 million to 8 million square feet of tech offices and research-and-development space in an area of about 240 acres. The campus would provide open spaces for public recreation, along with entertainment and retail options, city officials have said. The project is intended to fit with the Diridon Station Area Plan, which calls for up to 2,588 housing units. How many dwellings would be built in connection with the planned Google campus, and who would pay for construction, remains unclear.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/1...-solving-them/
__________________

bobby_guz_man, DarkEconomist liked this post
Davodd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 09:06 PM   #14680
bobby_guz_man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,809
Likes (Received): 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
What I suspect is the main culprit is the current policies that encourage sprawl zoning rather than investing in densification,
I think this perception of San Jose has got to stop. We have been investing in densification since 2000, the amount of multi family units are over 5x what we build in SFH and are approaching 10x.

San Jose's current policies do not encourage sprawl zoning, as far as I know. We seem really dead set on high-density infills. We still got a few bloopers here and there (hello Evergreen!) but by and large the City's mentality is all about densification, and the current planning department is the same.

Whether or not we're densifiying it properly and in the correct location is another topic. But let's give credit where credit is due: San Jose is certainly no longer sprawling and hasn't been doing so for a long time now.

San Jose is denser than Portland, for God's sake.
__________________

sjn, SanJosian liked this post
bobby_guz_man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
san josé

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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us