Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Changing the San Francisco skyline

  1. #1
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,438

    Changing the San Francisco skyline

    Thirty-five years after the Transamerica Pyramid became the peak that defines San Francisco's skyline, city officials said Thursday that they want to push even higher -- making room for what could be the tallest tower west of Chicago.

    The idea would be to raise height limits on several blocks south of Market Street to allow two towers as tall as the 853-foot Transamerica building and a third that would climb at least an additional 150 feet -- to more than 1,000 feet tall.
    Be sure you click on the image...what a difference this could make.

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGETJ2Q0P1.DTL
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  2. #2
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    1,184
    It will be interesting to see how the public responds. The rendering is pretty striking. I wonder how many people will look at it and think that is exactly what is proposed to be built.

  3. #3
    Cyburbian njm's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Highlight of the lowland
    Posts
    322
    My instict is this: is it really prudent to build exceptionaly tall buildings in a seismically active zone? I trust that the buildings can withstand it... but from an evacuation standpoint, would seem to be quite challenging. Also thought of how much extra burden 'twould put on the transportation system in that area (which is expensive to expand due to the seismic req'ts as well.)
    What luck! A random assemblage of words never sounded less intelligent.

  4. #4

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by njm
    My instict is this: is it really prudent to build exceptionaly tall buildings in a seismically active zone? I trust that the buildings can withstand it... but from an evacuation standpoint, would seem to be quite challenging. Also thought of how much extra burden 'twould put on the transportation system in that area (which is expensive to expand due to the seismic req'ts as well.)
    It's not really "prudent" to build cities toally thirty-sixty million people (LA+Sand Diego+Seattle) in a seismic zone, either

  5. #5
    Cyburbian yesteryear's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    No Cal
    Posts
    40
    I'm definitely one of the "save historic buildings" people mentioned in the article, but I think SF should go for it. Hopefully the voters will agree. And considering how everyone in SF is a critic, the aesthetic qualities of these buildings will most definitely be under intense scrutiny.

    In terms of the seismic question... there are lots of things that probably shouldn't be built in a place like this (Bay Area), or anywhere along the San Andreas or Hayward fault lines for that matter... but 8 million people have decided to live here, literally right on top of fault lines (where I'm living at the moment is in the liquefaction zone!), and the number will continue to grow, so hopefully some of these high rise buildings will include housing.

    In terms of transportation needs, the Transbay Terminal that's under construction/planning, and also mentioned in the article, could put a really great 'face' on Bay Area mass transit and hopefully it will. The current problem here is that none of the modes communicate with one another and those who don't live in SF have to transfer systems at some point or another in their commute. So basically if you're doing the right thing and taking PT from the southbay or peninsula to SF to work - you're probably holding on to a few different tickets and transferring a couple times, making it very frustrating when busses/trains are late and you miss your transfer. So many folks just give up and decide to drive. I guess the larger hope is that a one-stop shop for everything will push the integration process along.

    Next I'd like to see BART and MUNI trains run 24 hours - why they don't at this point is a mystery!

  6. #6

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by yesteryear

    In terms of the seismic question... there are lots of things that probably shouldn't be built in a place like this (Bay Area), or anywhere along the San Andreas or Hayward fault lines for that matter... but 8 million people have decided to live here, literally right on top of fault lines (where I'm living at the moment is in the liquefaction zone!), and the number will continue to grow, so hopefully some of these high rise buildings will include housing.
    Off-topic:
    My brother lives in The Marina District. My sister lives atop the Oakland Hills (Grizzly Peak Blvd)-her neighborhood will burn While Solano County (where I live) is "relatively" seismically safe, I was looking at the old newspaper photographs from the Great Winters and Vacaville Earthquake of 1886 (or something like that)

    Still-one brief week in the Midwest during the end of summer was enough to confirm for me the west ccoast is where I'll stay. I cannot stand stewing in my own juices (Ilet alone the awful winters)

  7. #7
    By all means yes, build more in San Francisco. If it's done tastefully it will add to this already beautiful city, America's most beautiful, imho.I'd like to see some new corporate towers added.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian cmd uw's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally posted by The Irish One
    By all means yes, build more in San Francisco. If it's done tastefully it will add to this already beautiful city, America's most beautiful, imho.I'd like to see some new corporate towers added.
    I agree. San Fran is already a dense city. I think it's time to get vertical.
    "First we shape our buildings, and then our buildings start shaping us." - Sir Winston Churchill

  9. #9
    Member Wulf9's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Near the Geysers
    Posts
    922
    I would rather stay low and dense. You can pack a lot into a city with 5-10 stories.

    As my fireman friends say, "when you stay in a skyscraper hotel, stay at the fifth story or below."

  10. #10
    Cyburbian Luca's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,150
    Wulf9 makes a good point. There is absolutely no way ypouc an demonstrate a need for very tall buildings. Contiguous 3-5 story buildings relaly apck them in.

    Then agian, a city may choose to allow some (or a lot of) tall buildings due to rpestige or other considerations but teh idea that you somnehow 'have' to have very tall buildings disappeared with rapid telecom/transportation.
    Life and death of great pattern languages

  11. #11
    Then agian, a city may choose to allow some (or a lot of) tall buildings due to rpestige or other considerations but teh idea that you somnehow 'have' to have very tall buildings disappeared with rapid telecom/transportation.
    A couple of corporate behemoths done proper will look nice -so yes "prestige" is right on target. Wulf is right but from what I understand SF is very hard to develop in. I can imagine the strain of developer finding a willing seller and mix that with what I'm sure are protections for existing conditions of districts. If you could develop 3-5 story buildings everywhere, most beautiful city on earth! my opinion.Cultural amenities, incalculable, heaven. Hell, maybe you could win the lottery for the apartments set aside for low income quota requirements.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Skyline Ranking
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 9
    Last post: 09 May 2005, 11:53 AM
  2. Skyline Variation
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 08 Nov 2004, 10:46 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last post: 22 May 2004, 11:34 AM
  4. Boston Skyline - 2014
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 24
    Last post: 14 Jan 2004, 4:09 PM
  5. Indianapolis Skyline
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 10
    Last post: 10 Oct 2003, 12:41 PM