Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12
I don't think many people really care about skyscraper height dick-measuring contests (everyone would lose to China and Dubai anyways). LA has had the tallest building on the west coast for decades now, it's not like SF's pride will be hurt or something if that continues. Also, I'm not sure why you think peanut gallery's opinion is that of all San Franciscans...not that his opinion even sounds like a "little village" opinion.
SF has dozens of high rises under construction, approved and proposed right now, which doesn't quite sound like a little village to me...and 10-20 years ago a 1,070' tower would have been unthinkable. So really it's more like the little village big city that can (finally!!). Not to mention the plan has always been to build a tall skyscraper, not the tallest skyscraper on the west coast.
Anyway, here have a nice rendering of the Transbay tower and the other towers proposed for the Transbay and Rincon hill redevelopment areas:
source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf
That sure looks like the type of development you see in a little village that can't!  |
This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.