SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[FourOneFive]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Unlike you, the NIMBY's live here, and will have to deal with these highrises daily. This is why they are concerned about their impact: shade, wind, views, blight. Not all highrises are successful. Look at the Philip Burton Building you dislike so much. Its main offense is it is too big for its context.

You make it seem as if these highrises will reach out and grab our children. These NIMBYs need to stop being provincial, and realize that San Francisco doesn't exist in a bubble. SF's Downtown serves not just the residents of the City, but the greater Bay Area. We need a world class transit center akin to New York, London, and Paris to strengthen our transit linkages with the rest of the region.

[FourOneFive]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Why should the cost, even if it is only an emotional cost, in the form of a raised middle finger, be borne by San Francisco residents who never use the transit center, and only get downtown by foot or by subway?

What a ridiculous comment. What of the San Francisco residents who work on the Peninsula or in Silicon Valley who will ultimately benefit from having commuter trains running directly downtown? You make it seem as if San Francisco residents only work in Downtown San Francisco.

[Jobohimself]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Unlike you, the NIMBY's live here, and will have to deal with these highrises daily. This is why they are concerned about their impact: shade, wind, views, blight. Not all highrises are successful. Look at the Philip Burton Building you dislike so much. Its main offense is it is too big for its context.

I live in both cities, and I can definitely tell you that the area is in dire need of redevelopment. The approval system in San Francisco is, at best, appalling. The most progressive city in the world, that wants everything to stay the same...so nothing ever gets done. San Francisco has a wonderful opportunity to make something world-class happen, and I am one of many that would love to see this plan come to fruition.

And for all the NIMBYs that bitch about height, they should move to San Diego, since it can't have world-class architecture.

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

And for all the NIMBYs that bitch about height, they should move to San Diego, since it can't have world-class architecture.

SD may not have the height due to Lindbergh Field's air restrictions over downtown, but it does at least have a good volume of condos in existance and in development. It may not be progressing as fast as Vancouver, but it also isn't building up at the snail's pace that we see here in SF.

[Jobohimself]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

SD may not have the height due to Lindbergh Field's air restrictions over downtown, but it does at least have a good volume of condos in existance and in development. It may not be progressing as fast as Vancouver, but it also isn't building up at the snail's pace that we see here in SF.

You have still failed to address the "world-class" part of my post, which was really what I was getting at.

[craeg]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

The shape of a building carries a message.

Yeah, and the message is "GET OVER IT"
This YIMBY lives in the city instead of under the bridge like some other internet trolls.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Unlike you, the NIMBY's live here, and will have to deal with these highrises daily. This is why they are concerned about their impact: shade, wind, views, blight. Not all highrises are successful. Look at the Philip Burton Building you dislike so much. Its main offense is it is too big for its context.

I'm left wondering what a skyscraper hater is doing trolling a skyscraper site.

But putting that aside, there are two ways to remedy the Burton Building problem as I said: change it or change the context--tear it down or build more highrises around it. Cities like New York are livable--even enjoyable--because they have the density, based on vertical development, to foster 24/7 living as opposed to present-day San Francisco where finding even something to eat after 10 PM is difficult.

I want more Manhattanization to make San Francisco as exciting and dynamic as Manhattan, and also to create places for those of us who can't afford $2 million Victorians with charming rear decks and views to die for. The nequidnimis viewpoint is ultimately elitist in the extreme: create the perfect little place for the few and send the rest to Concord or Vallejo.

[Jobohimself]

I also fail to see how one has to "deal with a highrise". Why is a blocked view of the approach to the Bay Bridge more important than creating a dense, livable, world class downtown?

[Reminiscence]

I dont mean to take sides against anyone, but I agree with the many of my fellow forumers. San Francisco needs this, and in a bad way. This may be our last chance in a while to truly build sky high and increase density in a part of town that could use it.

For those of you concerned about your world class views, surely you can see that this proposal greatly outweighs your interests. A 600' tower is just not gonna cut it and it would be a wasted oppurtunity to build so short at such an important site. The NIMBY arguments make no stand here and hopfully they will fail to sway the powers that be.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I'm left wondering what a skyscraper hater is doing trolling a skyscraper site.

I actually love skyscrapers provided they are well designed and appropriate for their context. However, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, this is not a skyscraper that inspires, it is a skyscraper you can xerox.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The nequidnimis viewpoint is ultimately elitist in the extreme: create the perfect little place for the few and send the rest to Concord or Vallejo.

Or Oakland, which is much closer. My first house was in East Oakland, a neighborhood that often makes the news but has good transit, and I lived in that house for fourteen years before I was able to move to San Francisco. The majority of my neighbors were actually very nice and I still see some of them (I wouldn't have stayed fourteen years otherwise). I believe housing and health care are universal rights. A condo in a good San Francisco neighborhood?

The reason I eventually was able to move to San Francisco is over those years my house appreciated, and I built equity. To start making San Francisco affordable to people earning the median income, prices in San Francisco would need to come down a third or more. It would be very traumatic for most home owners: no more re-fis in case of unexpected expenses, and a big check to write to the bank when you sell your place... Rejoice: prices have already started to come down. I believe the road to a condo in a good San Francisco neighborhood is the one I took: buy in an area that can only get better, and in so doing, with your fellow first time home buyers, make the area better, and eventually cash out and move to the place of your choice.

[Cbautz]

Pelli over SOM Design....WTF I am depressed

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

My first house was in East Oakland, a neighborhood that often makes the news but has good transit, and I lived in that house for fourteen years before I was able to move to San Francisco.
The reason I eventually was able to move to San Francisco is over those years my house appreciated, and I built equity. To start making San Francisco affordable to people earning the median income, prices in San Francisco would need to come down a third or more.

I think you and people like you are the reason it won't happen (prices coming down by a third). As long as San Francisco--almost any part of it, not just the "good" neighborhoods--remains the place most Bay Area residents would prefer to live, demand for homes there will only increase if prices come down at all.

But you have to ask why they want to live there. It has great views but there are arguably better views from Berkeley, Oakland, parts of Marin. Treasure Island may have the best views in the Bay Area but I wouldn't want to live there having experienced the place for 3 years working there. For some, SF's weather may be an attraction (gets neither too hot nor too cold but for others it may be a negative--foggy).

I suspect the main reason is a short commute and so much going on from restaurants to high culture to spontaneous gatherings and festivals. To keep the jobs in the city, we need to keep office rents as low as possible which means meeting demand for office space and that requires vertical development over time. And, as I've already explained, to keep the place lively and fun, more density means even more "happening" and more reasons to want to live here.

Nobody is going to build highrises in the Richmond, Sunset, Mission, Haight, Pacific Heights, Marina, Noe Valley etc. Those neighborhoods will remain largely as they are for those who can afford them--whether having built up equity in Oakland or not--but vertical housing and office development downtown can enhance the city's affordability and desirability for many and is very much worth doing even if it blocks a few people's views or otherwise detracts from their ideal vision of San Francisco when they chose to come downtown.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Either from user fees at the new transit center, or from charges on drivers who benefit from the reduced congestion the transit center and transit riders bring about. Why should the cost, even if it is only an emotional cost, in the form of a raised middle finger, be borne by San Francisco residents who never use the transit center, and only get downtown by foot or by subway?

I've raised my middle finger plenty of times at a cost to noone

There's no emotional cost in building this tower. How idiotic

Maybe with the reconstructed center, the people who never use the uninviting, decrepit current building will reconsider their options.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

I actually love skyscrapers provided they are well designed and appropriate for their context. However, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, this is not a skyscraper that inspires, it is a skyscraper you can xerox.

Well noone ever called her a genius either...

[hectorant84]

Ladies and gents... This building ain't gettin' any taller. If anything this building is going to get chopped down. I've given up with respect to ever seeing truly iconic skyscrapers in SF. First the debable last summer when the jury picked the most mundane design imaginable then the city is dragging it's princess slippers to make this happen. I mean come-the-fuck on! The pathetic part if SF politics is influenced by tree hugging, yoga posing, hybrid car driving, building are too tall, suffers from Bush - Cheney derangement syndrome, the US marines are our enemies, 9/11 was a government conspiracy fuck heads. I'm surprised Piano doesn't pack up his shit and run for the hills. Future San Francisican's prepare to gaze up at BofA, 101 CA Street, and the Transamerica Pyramid in 2208. The city is still going to be doing its environmental impact testing/BS or some shit like that.

[BTinSF]

Let me remind everyone that the issue here is not actually just one building. The TransBay Project envisions raising height limits of the entire project area and allowing several 900 ft plus buildings. And both the advocates and opponents of the signature tower understand that, uninspiring as it may, itself, be, if it gets built it breaks a barrier and other much taller buildings than anything presently in SF are likely to follow.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by hectorant84

Ladies and gents...Future San Francisican's prepare to gaze up at BofA, 101 CA Street, and the Transamerica Pyramid in 2208...

When Dr. McCoy traveled back with the Enterprise crew onboard a Klingon ship to 1986 San Francisco from the 23rd century, his first comment upon seeing the old city from the ship's view screen for the first time was, "it doesn't look all that different." Was this scene from the movie, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," a cruel or friendly prediction?

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Well noone ever called her a genius either...

Strange... My understanding is even her enemies give her points for intellect.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Let me remind everyone that the issue here is not actually just one building. The TransBay Project envisions raising height limits of the entire project area and allowing several 900 ft plus buildings. And both the advocates and opponents of the signature tower understand that, uninspiring as it may, itself, be, if it gets built it breaks a barrier and other much taller buildings than anything presently in SF are likely to follow.

Well, I sure hope you're right and Dr. McCoy is(will be) wrong. By the way BTinSF, weren't you also a doctor? ...Oh, and I wouldn't mind seeing more 'fingers' near the Piano either.