View Single Post
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2017, 7:40 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
You might be right. Should San Francisco allow taller buildings on top of Nob & Russian Hill?
San Francisco DOES allow taller buildings on its hills although Nob and Russian Hills have been pretty well built out for decades (You will note there are several prominent residential towers on both hills from the 1950s/60s). The new development on Rincon Hill, however, is the premier example of this policy and building on Cathedral Hill is another example.

This is principle #2 of the city's Urban Design Plan:

Quote:
Street layouts and building forms which do not emphasize topography reduce the clarity of the city form and image.

A: Tall, slender buildings at the tops of hills and low buildings on the slopes and in valleys accentuate the form of the hills.

B: Contour streets on hills align buildings to create a pattern of strong horizontal bands that conflict with the hill form . . . .
Reply With Quote