A Few Snapshots of San Diego from Above

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

I have not been to San Diego, but I have always wondered why the skyline looks so uninspired. I looked at these images hoping I might be surprised, but I

still am struck by how much this downtown looks like a rather forgettable suburban corporate accumulation.

So, I did a little digging because I can't believe the 8th largest city in the US would lack someone with a better sense of design. There are a few larger towers

there which stand out from the majority which look crudely truncated and blocky. It is a shame that even Helmut Jahn was apparently beaten down in this

city.

I wondered. Is it the strong presence of the military? is it the tourism? Is the city just a stopping off point on journeys to other places?

The worst of the bunch of less than inspiring designs is the cluster known as Emerald Plaza.

So, I did some more digging. I went around on a brief Google street view tour and the city looked better. Then, I did some reading about the city and I think I

found my answer.

The airport is right next to the downtown.

Apparently, in San Diego, the sky IS the limit. Air traffic has officially stunted the ability of this city's skyline to soar.

San Diego's skyline is a very good example of what can happen when urban planning lacked sufficient vision and the seeming inescapable result seems stunted.

I hope it works much better at ground level.

You did alot of digging...lol
San Diego doesnt need super tall construction, this is a nice mix and height, it will continue to gain density more like a Vancouver than San Francisco. The airport has been there since San Diego was not that large of a city.

[FromSD]

[QUOTE=Rooted Arborial;9707820]I have not been to San Diego, but I have always wondered why the skyline looks so uninspired. I looked at these images hoping I might be surprised, but I still am struck by how much this downtown looks like a rather forgettable suburban corporate accumulation.

I think that is a fair comment about Downtown San Diego. It is true that Lindbergh Field imposes a 500 foot height limit in DTSD, but I'm not sure San Diego would have skyscrapers higher than that if the limit weren't in place. It wasn't until the late '80s that DTSD had skyscrapers higher than 400 feet. And in general, public architecture is not San Diego's strong suit. There is the Hotel del Coronado, the County Administration Building, the Salk Institute and a few of the more notable brutalist buildings at UCSD, but in general San Diego is known more for the quality of its residential architecture in places like La Jolla, Del Mar and Rancho Santa Fe.

Certainly DTSD has made strides in the last 20 years, mostly because developers decided there was a market for high rise residential units. The '70s were a low point as the city turned its back on DTSD and instead focused on residential and commercial development in the northern half of the city. In the '70s everything south of Broadway was derelict, so the resurrection of the Gaslamp District and the development of Horton Plaza were big improvements. Then came the high rise condos and apartments and Petco Park.

But though the recent developments look modern and nice, they don't feel very organic. While the residential population is growing quickly, the number of jobs in DTSD is not. San Diego was never a headquarters town, which is why the city never had a need for landmark skyscrapers. Today DTSD has a few high rises for local banks and branch banks, a few city office buildings (in various stages of disrepair) and federal and state office and court buildings. That's pretty much it on the commercial side. Shopping downtown is also fairly lackluster. Horton Plaza, the savior of DTSD circa 1986, is in the process of being torn down.

San Diego is odd in that the rush hour morning traffic on several of the major freeways is from the core of the city to the northern periphery. Sorrento Valley, University Town Center and Kearny Mesa are major employment centers from 7 to 15 miles north of DTSD. I imagine that many of the professionals who buy or rent the pricey high rise units downtown work in the northern part of the city.

San Diego definitely doesn't have the homeless population that San Francisco and LA do, but it does have a serious problem made worse by the pandemic. The other issue is that the city never thought it had a duty to address the problem in a comprehensive way. A Hepatitis A outbreak among the homeless a few years ago finally forced the city to pay attention, but it's not clear how the city will be able to marshal the resources to deal with the problem effectively on a long term basis. In the last two years the city has used pandemic relief money from the state and federal government to pay to house homeless individuals and families. But those funds won't last forever. DTSD probably benefits from the fact that homelessness is not concentrated there alone--there are also homeless at the beach, in canyons, in the Midway District, in the San Diego Riverbed, and in random places elsewhere in the city. But while the DTSD homeless scene is nothing like the SF Tenderloin or LA's skid row, it still makes its presence known.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

San Diego is odd in that the rush hour morning traffic on several of the major freeways is from the core of the city to the northern periphery.

Now that you mention it, I noticed that on my recent visit--but in relation to Coronado island. In addition to staying downtown, we spent a couple days at the Marriott resort there, and I could see the the Coronado Bridge from our terrace. I was surprised to see the heavy traffic coming onto the island in the morning, and leaving the island at the end of the day. I expected it be the other way around.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by craigs

Now that you mention it, I noticed that on my recent visit--but in relation to Coronado island. In addition to staying downtown, we spent a couple days at the Marriott resort there, and I could see the the Coronado Bridge from our terrace. I was surprised to see the heavy traffic coming onto the island in the morning, and leaving the island at the end of the day. I expected it be the other way around.

The North Island naval base on Coronado is a big employer. People commute to it over the bridge and also from the South Bay via the Silver Strand.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

The North Island naval base on Coronado is a big employer. People commute to it over the bridge and also from the South Bay via the Silver Strand.

That makes sense. We watched an aircraft carrier come into the naval base after a long time at sea, and the traffic on the island was gridlocked. We just rented bikes to get around that day!

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

I have not been to San Diego, but I have always wondered why the skyline looks so uninspired. I looked at these images hoping I might be surprised, but I

still am struck by how much this downtown looks like a rather forgettable suburban corporate accumulation.

So, I did a little digging because I can't believe the 8th largest city in the US would lack someone with a better sense of design. There are a few larger towers

there which stand out from the majority which look crudely truncated and blocky. It is a shame that even Helmut Jahn was apparently beaten down in this

city.

I wondered. Is it the strong presence of the military? is it the tourism? Is the city just a stopping off point on journeys to other places?

The worst of the bunch of less than inspiring designs is the cluster known as Emerald Plaza.

So, I did some more digging. I went around on a brief Google street view tour and the city looked better. Then, I did some reading about the city and I think I

found my answer.

The airport is right next to the downtown.

Apparently, in San Diego, the sky IS the limit. Air traffic has officially stunted the ability of this city's skyline to soar.

San Diego's skyline is a very good example of what can happen when urban planning lacked sufficient vision and the seeming inescapable result seems stunted.

I hope it works much better at ground level.

This image encapsulates the reason for the 500-foot limit:



While the skyline has been stunted, the airport has created some key benefits that are often overlooked:

First, the downtown skyline is likely much denser than it likely would have been otherwise.

Second, the airport probably has the most prime location for travelers of any American city. Downtown is a quick Uber or bus ride away (though I wish it had direct rail connections). But it's so close to multiple popular neighborhoods that I know people who literally walk or bike to the airport when heading out on trips. This is a huge perk for tourists, business travelers, and for conventions.

Visually, the flight path provides a lot of interest. In Little Italy you'll see trains/Trolleys zipping by, ships sailing in the harbor, and airlines gliding down to the City. I love that part of it. Also, landing in San Diego is probably the trippiest out there, with how close you get to the buildings and the ground:

South-facing view
North-facing View

That said, San Diego would definitely have towers exceeding 500 feet if the airport weren't there. The tallest buildings are right at that 500 foot level, and the only reason there aren't more 500-footers is because the limit was later defined as 500 feet above sea level rather than ground level. So recent highrises max out at 480' or so. My guess is that we'd easily have 800 foot residential towers if allowed. The harbor/ocean views downtown are amazing and every developer would want to maximize them.

[Rooted Arborial]

In thinking about the shortness of San Diego's skyline, I wondered how much the city sprawls beyond its center.

Here is a comparison/ranking of the top 20 cities (by population) in the USA and area of land which is within each municipality.

This does not reflect the sprawl of their suburban areas or where some of these cities are in close proximity to another on this list.

It is the area of the city alone. They are ranked from largest area to smallest. In parenthesis is each city's population rank.

1. Jacksonville, Florida (12)
2. Houston, Texas (4)
3. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (20)
4. Phoenix, Arizona (5)
5. San Antonio, Texas (7)
6. Los Angeles, California (2)
7. Indianapolis, Indiana (15)
8. Fort Worth, Texas (13)
9. Dallas, Texas (9)
10. San Diego, California (8)
11. Austin, Texas (11)
12. Charlotte, North Carolina (16)
13. New York, New York (1)
14. Chicago, Illinois (3)
15. Columbus, Ohio (14)
16. San Jose, California (18)
17. Denver, Colorado (19)
18. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (6)
19. Seattle, Washington (18)
20. San Fransisco, California (17)

The range of land area is from 747 square miles for Jacksonville to 46.9 square miles for San Fransisco.

None of this can definitively indicate the "livability" of any of these cities, but, I GUESS, it might reflect a little something about the aesthetics of the skyline in

relation to the area which most directly supports their signature skyline, or not!

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

In thinking about the shortness of San Diego's skyline, I wondered how much the city sprawls beyond its center.

Here is a comparison/ranking of the top 20 cities (by population) in the USA and area of land which is within each municipality.

This does not reflect the sprawl of their suburban areas or where some of these cities are in close proximity to another on this list.

It is the area of the city alone. They are ranked from largest area to smallest. In parenthesis is each city's population rank.

1. Jacksonville, Florida (12)
2. Houston, Texas (4)
3. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (20)
4. Phoenix, Arizona (5)
5. San Antonio, Texas (7)
6. Los Angeles, California (2)
7. Indianapolis, Indiana (15)
8. Fort Worth, Texas (13)
9. Dallas, Texas (9)
10. San Diego, California (8)
11. Austin, Texas (11)
12. Charlotte, North Carolina (16)
13. New York, New York (1)
14. Chicago, Illinois (3)
15. Columbus, Ohio (14)
16. San Jose, California (18)
17. Denver, Colorado (19)
18. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (6)
19. Seattle, Washington (18)
20. San Fransisco, California (17)

The range of land area is from 747 square miles for Jacksonville to 46.9 square miles for San Fransisco.

None of this can definitively indicate the "livability" of any of these cities, but, I GUESS, it might reflect a little something about the aesthetics of the skyline in

relation to the area which most directly supports their signature skyline, or not!

I wouldn't go by city limits. This topic is discussed ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere, but city limits are not a good metric. The sprawl/urban-ness of a City is more than the arbitrary line that determines who votes for which mayor.

[plinko]

The municipal population or land area of said municipality has anything to do with skyline size. I've added # of 400ft towers built + under construction in each...(source is SSP diagrams so may be off slightly)

1. Jacksonville, Florida (12) - 5
2. Houston, Texas (4) - 67
3. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (20) - 5
4. Phoenix, Arizona (5) - 2
5. San Antonio, Texas (7) - 5
6. Los Angeles, California (2) - 57
7. Indianapolis, Indiana (15) - 6
8. Fort Worth, Texas (13) - 6
9. Dallas, Texas (9) - 36
10. San Diego, California (8) - 20
11. Austin, Texas (11) - 30
12. Charlotte, North Carolina (16) - 17
13. New York, New York (1) - Hundreds...
14. Chicago, Illinois (3) - 236?
15. Columbus, Ohio (14) - 10
16. San Jose, California (18) - 0
17. Denver, Colorado (19) - 16
18. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (6) - 33
19. Seattle, Washington (18) - 54
20. San Francisco, California (17) - 58

[mthq]

Way to go, craigs! What a great view you had. I, too, would be asking for the city view over the bay view any day of the week. Was briefly in SD a few years ago, and I miss it everyday.

As an urban nerd and an Avgeek, this pic of the San Diego skyline with the retro-themed British Airways jet overhead is just straight up arousing.

Originally Posted by Streamliner

This image encapsulates the reason for the 500-foot limit: