SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It would be a total understatement to say that San Francisco is a unique American city with a totally unique look. There is no place like it.

What fascinates about this incredible city is its uncanny ability to combine the beauty of man with the beauty of nature...and improving on both. The natural setting: the bay serving as amphitetheatre in the center, surrounded by hills and mountains with the Pacific to the west and the Golden Gate connecting the two. Pure enchantment.

San Francisco has taken its peninsular location and enhanced with its white washed, Mediterannean look....the pastels, the bay windows, the mixture of victorian and red tiled stucco. You can look at a pictue of a San Francisco neighborhood and identifying it, knowing it could be no where else.

Even in an era when commercial forces put pressures on cities, SF has gotten better, not worse. It fought freeways, restricted their growth and used an earthquake to tear some down. Even unquestionably dark buildings (like B of A) and come-look-at-me ones like the Transamerica Pyramid, after contraversial starts are embraced as intregal parts of the city.

Yet the future is open ended...and more and more change will come.

So here's my question: IS SAN FRANCISCO (AND, IN EXTENSION, THE WHOLE ENCHANTED BAY AREA) CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING THE MAN MADE END OF THINGS TO MATCH THE NATURAL?

The skyline that once followed the flow of the downtown hills (Nob, Russian, Telegraph) now overpowers it and blocks views.

What will the future bring? Will there be a pressure for added density that could seriously affect views and neighborhood character? Will the unique SF style of design always be protected in future construction? Will the man made contribution to San Francisco keep up with nature's contributions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
It is a gorgeous city...however one question? Why is it that America is so keen to build its cities with no consideration for the dangers attached to the locales. Look at London, Paris and Berlin. All topographically stable locations. I fear the future of gorgeous San Fransisco.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,781 Posts
I think as San Fransisco gets larger in population their going to
find away to build upwards somehow. And still have that SF style in buildings
I dont think they can make things match the natural because their could be
times where parts of the city are in poor conditions and parts are in great conditions
Land is land city is city but the beauty is what counts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
They've balanced everything very well so far, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't continue to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
It's sort of interesting to hear people say that they find S.F so beautiful. Personally, I think it can be sort of ugly. The Bay area is incredible. It's maybe one of the most magnificent areas of the usa. But San Francisco is dirty. There is some interesting architecture, (Pyramid Bldg, GoldenGate Bridge, Coit Tower Palace of Fine Arts.) but there is also a lot of really nondescript buildings. The city has a major maintenance problem. Nothing is kept up well, in my opinion. My feeling is that if San Francisco were in any other area of the country it would be a physically mediocre city, at best.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
My feeling is that if San Francisco were in any other area of the country it would be a physically mediocre city, at best.
Well then,
Thank Heavens its located exactly where it is. Im so relieved. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
No offense meant to San Francisco. But this thread is about man and nature concerning the city. I guess my point is that the natural surroundings of the bay area are magnificent while the city of San Francisco is, in my opinion not that physically interesting. There is very little green in the downtown area. Most of the trees were removed in the fifties.

I lived there for a number of years and it was just my personal observation.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
Oh,
No offense taken. You cant please all the people all the time. However, I do disagree with you on the notion that San Francisco's architecture is "nondescript"-on the contrary, San Francisco in pictures, be it the residential neighborhoods or downtown is perhaps one of the most easily recognizable cities in the world.

Individually these buildings could be anywhere-collectively though, There's just no mistaking what city this is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,535 Posts
True, San Francisco has done a better job than most North American cities of keeping out the bad, preserving the best, adding better.

Not perfect. The destruction of the heart of the vibrant Western Addition was one of the worst of many US urban renewal projects. SF’s biggest problem has been absence of affordable housing. SF has been taking about job-housing imbalance for decades, but doing little about it. And so, without affordable housing, the jobs too have been migrating out. Jobs tend to follow people in & out. Transamerica retains just a tiny residential presence in the magnificent Pyramid tower that was once its HQ’s & still bears its name. The HQ of the BofA is in Charlotte, not in SF.

SF must respect & preserve its wonderful natural surroundings & never forget that the city takes its name from the Bay, not vice versa. Yet even the best and most attractive of cities cannot simply rest on their laurels.

If SF is to remain competitive as a place to live as well as work, much more is needed in the way of high-rise residential development. NIMBYs are a huge problem in the western & northern parts of city. But higher density residential should be developed along new transit corridors, particularly Geary Blvd & Van Ness. Remaining developable zones, primarily in eastern & southern SF, should be built up high-rise, high-density, providing better & affordable housing for the existing residents of those neighborhoods, as well as others.

Clearly, Vancouver BC provides best example of a North American city that has enthusiastically pursued high-rise housing, adding many tens of thousands of people & much more vitality to its core, enhancing the natural & manmade qualities that have always made it so attractive.

Seattle & San Diego have being doing it. So there’s nothing at all wrong with SF borrowing even better development ideas from Canada’s West Coast metropolis!
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top