SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is any urban region in the US as threatened by future development as San Francisco and the Bay Area?

I ask this in light of its extraoridnary setting: a huge, wide, open body of water in its core (creating an amphitheatre for views) with hills rising from all portions of the bay as well as mountains in the extremity.

To me, there is no place on earth so designed for man and nature to combine for such extraordinary beauty (there are more mountainous settings such as HK and Rio, but the Bay Area, IMHO, best balances both man and nature and allows them to compliment each other in a functional layout).

What concerns me is that SF and the Bay Area are so extraordinarily beautiful that massive development in the future could hurt the region in a way other metro areas would not experience, with views being blocked and the contour of hills lost (i.e. downtown SF).

Do others see this as a concern and, if so, are there other US metro areas that you see also facing a similiar topographical fate?
 

·
Journeyman
Joined
·
16,791 Posts
Personally I don't find SF beautiful. Pretty, but "beautiful" is too strong. The topography isn't sharp enough, and it's too brown.

I like it when dense urbanity alters the look of a place. (Dense, efficient urbanity, not sprawl.)

I guess we disagree on things!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Azn_chi_boi said:
What about Tampa and the Tampa Bay? or Toronto(to Buffalo) and Lake Ontario
tampa isn't the same in any way. SF Bay is surrounded by hills, with real mountain peaks beyond. it is the combination of bay, ocean, hills, and mountains that makes this an ususual enviornment and one subject to harm if the natural contours are altered and views are blocked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,681 Posts
Azn_chi_boi said:
What about Tampa and the Tampa Bay? or Toronto(to Buffalo) and Lake Ontario
Toronto has plenty of land. By no way is it threatened, though traffic jams will worsen over time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
edsg25 said:
Is any urban region in the US as threatened by future development as San Francisco and the Bay Area?

I ask this in light of its extraoridnary setting: a huge, wide, open body of water in its core (creating an amphitheatre for views) with hills rising from all portions of the bay as well as mountains in the extremity.

To me, there is no place on earth so designed for man and nature to combine for such extraordinary beauty (there are more mountainous settings such as HK and Rio, but the Bay Area, IMHO, best balances both man and nature and allows them to compliment each other in a functional layout).

What concerns me is that SF and the Bay Area are so extraordinarily beautiful that massive development in the future could hurt the region in a way other metro areas would not experience, with views being blocked and the contour of hills lost (i.e. downtown SF).

Do others see this as a concern and, if so, are there other US metro areas that you see also facing a similiar topographical fate?

why limit to US metros? that's stupid.




Vancouver is in a similar situation. Everyone talks about what a spectacular meeting of City, Water, and Mountains it is. But if we build higher skyscrapers, expand downtown, those mountains get blocked off. Right now there is a 600 foot limit on all projects. But in the future that has to change and we'll lose the spectacular setting.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top