San Diego skyline rating (to rent, condo, to live in)

[brajohns81]

Like San Antonio, Texas, I think San Diego's skyline is not as big or as striking as other cities of its size. What do you think??

[kettlepot]

Yes, it's well known that much of San Diego's downtown architecture is un-inspired, especially, the enlarged econo-boxes of the 60s and 70s. Of course a LOT of International and Bauhaus architecture has been considered uninspired where ever it's been built.

There are probably two reasons for this. The first one is the strict 500 foot height limit, which gives an economic preference for stocky, bulky, 500 foot buildings, instead of taking some of the volume of the sides and adding it to the top.

Another reason was that for a significant portion of the city's early days as a big city, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, a lot of the architects for the big buildings were from out of the area who seemed to do design-by-the-numbers architecture that had no relation to the city around it.

Everyone in the city's architecture community recognizes the problem, but they can't seem to figure out how to fix the design code to provide a way around it.

[mewzikguy]

Those pics are all 10 years outdated, except the last one possibly. . . . . and like Portland, Tampa, Phoenix, we have a height limit because of airport . . . .

[jksouthbay88]

Wayyyyyy too short
Don't like it

[NYSD1995]

height limit isn't the only issue. Main problem is lack of commercial HQ's. With the waterfront setting it's not necessary for the buildings to be that tall, as anything on the water will have a clear view from offshore.

Most of the buildings are condo towers. Since people have to live in them they tend to be less architecturally distinctive than office towers. Try naming 3 iconic residential towers in the world vs. commercial towers, it's harder than it seems.

[BRinSM]

when considering the geographic setting for the SD skyline, i think SD has the best skyline on the west coast after SF. Seattle would probably be a close 3rd. As for height, i'm not a fan of tall buildings for the sake of being tall. it's all about fitting into the environment for me. LA has some really tall buildings downtown, but they that's all you see, a handful of super tall buildings surrounded by lowrise sprawl. also, outside of the americas and asia skylines don't much exist. some of the most beautiful cities i've been to don't have many buildings greater than 5 or 6 stories (see europe).

[Oerdin]

The skyline itself is pretty run of the mill though the setting is very nice with the water in front and the mountains behind. Unfortunately, San Diego just doesn't have any world class signature architecture to call its own and judging by the crappy design of the proposed new downtown library we're so cheap and short sighted we won't be getting any soon. I guess you get what you deserve and for our lack of vision we get a rather boring skyline.

[sdurbanite]

Originally Posted by brajohns81

Like San Antonio, Texas, I think San Diego's skyline is not as big or as striking as other cities of its size. What do you think??

I recently visited San Antonio and can honestly say that San Diego's skyline blows it away. I found SA's skyline to be very drab.

That said, I think SD's skyline is registers "just above" average. IMO, the only are iconic buildings we have are One America Plaza aka the phillips screwdriver and the Emerald Building aka allen wrench building with green neon.

I do think it's setting is fantastic, though.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Most of the buildings are condo towers. Since people have to live in them they tend to be less architecturally distinctive than office towers. Try naming 3 iconic residential towers in the world vs. commercial towers, it's harder than it seems.

The other big issue is the city doesn't zone anything commercial so no one builds office towers. The local developers don't want to invest in risky office towers which you have to rent out and prefer flipping residential places for a quick buck. This has resulted in tons of residential places but no new office towers. Where will all these new residents work? Study after study shows businesses say office space is too expensive in San Diego so we need to build more but the city always caves into the demands of a few connected developers instead of strong arming them into doing something good for the city (I.E. You want those three residential proposals of yours approved? Then build a damn office tower first.).

[NYSD1995]

I can tell you that now that I work in Downtown SD high-rise, it is not a very desirable location for a service business. Many of the office towers are old and the parking garages are too tight and have slow elevators. Downtown is hard to get into and out-of with old one-lane freeway onramps and lots of very long stoplights on the surface streets. Everything backs up in all directions and the stoplights aren't synced correctly. In North County you can just jump on the freeway and sit in traffic, in Downtown it takes 10 minutes to go 3 blocks to get to the onramp and then you have to deal with freeway traffic. Most of the amenities like restaurants are high-end tourist-driven affairs and there are not nearly enough places to get a quick lunch. Getting down the elevator, waiting for food, back up to your floor can take 45 minutes!

So I don't think there is much demand for commercial in Downtown SD, why would you want an office here when you could have one in North County (where most of the knowledge workers live anyway). Alternatively you could get something more mid-rise in Mission Valley if you need to be close to the central core.