Skyscraper City Forum banner

What would a NY/Chgo type skyline mean for San Francisco?

  • It would be great and enhance the beauty of the place.

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • It would detract from the careful mix of man and nature

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Trade-offs: more dramatic with unfortunate loss of openness & views

    Votes: 6 27.3%
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Booming downtown San Francisco has a tower of over 1000 feet projected for Soma. The city has long since relaxed its height restrictions and the growth of the downtown skyline and downtown concentration keeps getting higher.

If the growth of the San Francisco skyline continues, it could, in time, mirror some of the scope of the New York and Chicago skylines.

New York (relatively) and Chicago (definitely) are flatter cities. Chicago is basically a geometric plane. Manhattan from midtown south is pretty damned flat. Both cities are great platforms for high rise structures.

San Francisco has always been about hills, about mixing the best of nature with the best of man. A far more fragile enviornment than either New York or Chicago.

What would be the effect of a massive, super high downtown SF skyline? Would it enhance the city or detract from it? Could SF's nature oriented sites and hil oriented sight lines survive a dominating skyline like its eastern and midwestern counterparts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Booming downtown San Francisco has a tower of over 1000 feet projected for Soma. The city has long since relaxed its height restrictions and the growth of the downtown skyline and downtown concentration keeps getting higher.

If the growth of the San Francisco skyline continues, it could, in time, mirror some of the scope of the New York and Chicago skylines.

New York (relatively) and Chicago (definitely) are flatter cities. Chicago is basically a geometric plane. Manhattan from midtown south is pretty damned flat. Both cities are great platforms for high rise structures.

San Francisco has always been about hills, about mixing the best of nature with the best of man. A far more fragile enviornment than either New York or Chicago.

What would be the effect of a massive, super high downtown SF skyline? Would it enhance the city or detract from it? Could SF's nature oriented sites and hil oriented sight lines survive a dominating skyline like its eastern and midwestern counterparts?
They tried that in 1974 and look how it ended. Steve McQueen wasn't a big skyscraper fan, was he?
:badnews:
 

·
Downtown San Jose
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
I dunno, the city's geography is what makes it beautiful and unique. But since I know they will keep buidling I hope they keep building south of Market.
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
Ed, I don't think it's too much of a problem if SF continues to building upward, so long as they don't build too tall.

I'm sure you derived this discussion topic from bay_area's thread, and the Bay Bridge is only blocked when viewed from Twin Peaks. The view will pretty much stay the same, and a growing skyline wouldn't hurt because there is no more room to build up west of Market.

Still plenty of views to enjoy my friend. No need to worry. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,278 Posts
If New York had a Chicago type of skyline (one that stretches in an orderly fashion along the lakeshore) it would problem stretch from Boston to DC....:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
I know you pro-SF development fans would like to see it, but to me anything higher than the Pyramid would detract from the best natural setting in the U.S. (And this is coming from a native Seattleite!) I like the high mid-density of SF. Seems to work for the setting in my mind. Just an opinion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I actually don't think the scenerio I've suggested will happen in San Francisco. I do believe the commitment to super tall buildings is more confined to south of market and the push is for taller but narrower structures. South of Market does a lot less blocking of the hills to the west than north of Market does.

I also agree with Westside that Twin Peaks is high enough to prevent real blockage of bay and East Bay views.

Still, SF is a delicate balance and it definitely needs to consider sight lines and its natural enivornment in any escalation of the height of the skyline.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
I think it would detract from the natural beauty of The City. The current plans are perfect imo. the 2-3 thousand footers currently being planned wouldnt really be that dominating compared to the far higher hills that surround the city from the east and north.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top