Quote:
Originally Posted by don116
All the problems you're listing can be overcome and have been easily solved in other buildings around the world.
|
Recently? In the United States? Examples please of buildings in the US constructed since 2001 with observation decks.
The rest of the world doesn't count. They don't have our litigious legal system or our approach to the issue of terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116
More excuses. The same could have been said about the Shard in London, One WTC, Empire State Building, Willis Tower...the list goes on. SF planners and developers love to find reasons not to do something and make no effort to work around it.
|
I'm sorry but the Empire State or Willis were built in another era--the Stone Age as far as the issues I mentioned are concerned. One WTC is a rather unique icon that was built to unique and uniquely uneconomic design standards as a statement. The lower floors were massively reinforced against truck bombs as happened to the old WTC in the 1990s. And the top floors were leased to Cantor-Fitzgerald for who knows what rate, again as perhaps a statement since they occupied the top floors of the former WTC (not to mention that Windows on the World, the sort of thing you are wanting, is also a relic of the former WTC and whether it continues to survive in this era remains to be seen).
This isn't about SF planners. I'm sure they'd love to have "public open space" on the top floor of one of these towers. The problem is the economies and liabilities of doing it impose too many problems on buildng owners, managers and occupants, and what do they get out of it? A slight enhancement to the building's reputation perhaps but I doubt that translates into much of an enhancement to per square foot rents or selling prices which are what matters to them.
The bottom line is that you are arguing they should do it because you so much want them to but there is precious little reason to induce them beyond, perhaps, pleasing a handful of skyscraper fans.