Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Not that Im complaining, but last week I was driving down a hill and looked out onto the skyline and noticed that One Rincon Hill, this 641-ft condo tower under construction has sorta obstructed the view of the bay and bridge. In a way I kinda wished it wasnt there. I suppose this is part of the sacrifice we must make in order for our cities to scrape the sky as it were. LOL

Still, I think I'll miss the view.

It'll be only 641' but its perched on a hill about 150' above the bay so it looks closer to 800'-see the view of the bay bridge is now obstructed-as you can see, SOMAs waterfront is packed like sardines now with mid and highrises.


From this angle, its not so bad I guess-or is it worse?


it looks a lot taller then it really is..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
San Francisco is the #1 test city as to what effect the skyscraper can have on how a city appears. No city in the US needs to protect its natural sightlines than SF.

To its credit, the city has (1) abandoned its absurd attempt to completely curtail tall buildings and (2) opted for taller, narrower structures that make for a more elegant skyline and prevent as much blocking of views.

But any kind of skyline does some blocking of views and downtown SF does its own damage. The pre-1960 SF skyline followed the curvature of the downtown hills. Buildings in the downtown area almost organically seemed to emerge from places like Nob Hill or Russian Hill and amazingly seemed to retain the original contours.

No more. Downtown farily well blocks views of the hills, at least north of Market (and south there isn't as much to block).

SF is a fragile enviornment. It is going to have to decide how big and massive its skyline is going to get without seriously affecting and destroying its essence.

Removed from downtown, SF faces the daunting challege of a city of increased density by how it will place its residential high rises of the future. Will they be like the Fontana Apartments that eons ago blocked the views along the north waterfront. So far, the residential, non-downtown high rises have been benignly placed in the relatively flat stretches of the city's s.w. corner in Parkmerced and Stonestown. Such development could be a disaster for views if built anywhere east of Twin Peaks of the neighborhoods that run north of downtown and between GGP and the Presidio.

San Francisco shares so much with New York and Chicago. But San Francisco is not New York or Chicago. Its hilly terrain puts retraints on the visual appeal of skyline in ways unheard of in the Big Apple and Windy City.

San Francisco is a special environment. It needs to be constantly aware and visual about protecting it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
The tower may have stole your view, but, whoever moves in there got a great gain! :D
 

·
If I could be anyone...
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
Holy Campanile! This picture seems to have taken Cal out of Berkeley and dropped it off on the Embarcadero!
Berkeley is only about 10 miles from San Francisco, when taken from the height of a few hundred feet, on a clear day, it can seem really close!
 

·
Proud Torontonian
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Packed like sardines? I'm digging the simile.

In all honesty though, no matter how shitty it may be, condos have to be built somewhere. Demand must be met, simple as that. Every city is obviously going to do its best to preserve its views, but when demand exceeds what the non view land can support, there's no choice but to build on the view land that has been left empty.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top