SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors

[slock]

Killer shots from a drone at Salesforce Tower's height.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/1...tower.php#more

[fflint]

Those Curbed drone shots showing Benioff's future penthouse views are insane!





Source

[sterlippo1]

^^^wow, looks incredible. What fantastic additions to an already great skyline

[SoCal Alan]

Originally Posted by slock

Killer shots from a drone at Salesforce Tower's height.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/1...tower.php#more

Those are some insane views.

[mt_climber13]

[Valyrian Steel]

What does the first amendment have to do with an internet forum?

[toxteth o'grady]

Originally Posted by fflint

Those Curbed drone shots showing Benioff's future penthouse views are insane!





Source

30 years ago, it was "Don't Manhattanize San Francisco!" 30 years later, it looks like they failed.

[chris08876]

Its incredible how dense the city has gotten. In terms of highrises, its a respectable number. Downtown has grown so much (along with the surrounding areas) in the last 30 years.

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by toxteth o'grady

30 years ago, it was "Don't Manhattanize San Francisco!" 30 years later, it looks like they failed.

Your kidding right ?
S.F. has , or will have a total of 428 high rise . New York has a total of 5900 .
Thats like trying to compare the Wright brothers first flight to a landing on the moon .

[chris08876]

^^^^

Manhattanization refers to a boom of tall or clustered high rises/skyscrapers that can give the resemblance of a highrise city or at least in laymens terms, a transformation per say. The same neologism was used for Las Vegas during the boom in the early 2000's.

It does NOT mean that a city will look like Manhattan or have the sheer number of tall structures. The same term was used to describe Toronto's boom for example. Likewise for Miami.

So toxteth o'grady was right in that regard.

NYC's history as a skyscraper defined city is often why people say that Hong Kong is the New York of Asia. The city has built a reputation for itself, and using such a term often evokes signs of a highrise transformation.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by summersm343

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and this is not a City V. City thread, so let's not turn it into one, but I see no reason why Philly can't be in the equation. It has less talls but more density than LA, and more talls but less density than SF. And with a 1,000 footer, a 700 footer and a ton of infill in the 200-600 foot range, the skyline is really expanding just the same as the other two.

http://www.manchustudiesgroup.org/wp...day-1400vp.jpg
http://technical.ly/philly/wp-conten...jeff-fusco.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...on-holiday.jpg

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

This is kind of case in point here - SF's skyline is simply a much larger conglomeration of buildings with not a substantially smaller amount of "very" tall buildings greater than 700ft (and with time that gap should narrow) and a significantly higher amount of tall (500-700 ft) and less tall towers, over a greater area, with much much higher density filling in the spaces. The view above doesn't even capture Mid-Market, which should have a decent skyline all on its own (now) and certainly in the future.

I think Philly's skyline is more shapely, though, but SF's (and Miami's clearly) skyline sheer size is starting to get into that level (where NYC and Chicago's have been for 100 years now) where there's just a tabletop of uniformly tall buildings with occasional very tall buildings poking up.

Mod, are you F'ing serious? You come in here and delete a bunch of posts, leaving yours up, of course , and leaving mine up, both of which are now no longer relevant or meaningful since the rest of the convo was deleted?

NO! Please now delete MY now unrelated post, AND delete your own! That's simply ridiculous. Or just leave all of the former posts and don't cowtow to a bunch of LA posters in a SF thread. Be a better moderator.

[chris08876]

^^^

From what I gather, this is an SSP problem from homerism (in this case repping certain cities) to taking weeks to move threads. Not pointing names, but just an observation that I'm sure many share. And banning the biggest contributors over little things. Walpole for example. He's a good contributor over at YIMBY. I would never ban him over there, because we value members who contribute. Eveningsong (perkol) too. Sure he has a sense of humor, but he actually cares. NYC Transportation thread has taken a nose dive due to his banning.

I think many of us prefer SSP over SSC because we tend to have the latest news. I notice for example we have threads up or the latest info hours or even weeks before they do. Theres a toxic nature to some of these sub forums.

Just an observation, but its true. Even in the current event section, if you don't agree with certain views, you are threatened. I hope the admins take notice to this because its getting rid of members.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Mod, are you F'ing serious? You come in here and delete a bunch of posts, leaving yours up, of course , and leaving mine up, both of which are now no longer relevant or meaningful since the rest of the convo was deleted?

NO! Please now delete MY now unrelated post, AND delete your own! That's simply ridiculous. Or just leave all of the former posts and don't cowtow to a bunch of LA posters in a SF thread. Be a better moderator.

First of all, it was not me who deleted all the messages and left mine up. I just deleted mine for you since it seems to bother you so much.

[pseudolus]

I'm inclined to agree that the moderator needed to intervene.

[tech12]

It's off topic, but the mods at SSP seem fair most of the time, if you ask me. People here don't usually seem to get banned until they constantly push the wrong buttons, and act like assholes/break the rules over and over (whether they're otherwise a good poster or not).

If you want lots of bad moderating, check out city-data.

Anyways, those are some awesome aerials!

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Outta here

Your kidding right ?
S.F. has , or will have a total of 428 high rise . New York has a total of 5900 .
Thats like trying to compare the Wright brothers first flight to a landing on the moon .

Yes, although there are those of us know the actual statistical truth, I don't think many NIMBYs would agree. The term Manhattanization came about in the late 1960's, when NIMBYs already thought San Francisco was becoming too much like Manhattan with mostly ugly over-sized over-tall buildings that block light and views. There was so much concern that a measure to limit height to a maximum of 6 stories for all of San Francisco was actually placed on ballot in the early 1970's. It did not win, but other height limiting measures less, but still somewhat severe did win later. As we know, much of San Francisco's super dense tabletop shaped skyline up until the last decade was the result of such limiting measures. Proposed heights for the Transbay area were also reduced for shadow concerns that still remain.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by summersm343

First of all, it was not me who deleted all the messages and left mine up. I just deleted mine for you since it seems to bother you so much.

Ok but since you have the power now that you are moderator and all and since I asked you, please delete my post, referenced above. It has no meaning since the entirety of the rest of the conversation was deleted.

Originally Posted by tech12

It's off topic, but the mods at SSP seem fair most of the time, if you ask me. People here don't usually seem to get banned until they constantly push the wrong buttons, and act like assholes/break the rules over and over (whether they're otherwise a good poster or not).

If you want lots of bad moderating, check out city-data.

Anyways, those are some awesome aerials!

I disagree with this, mostly.

On a sidenote, moderating (and posting) on this site has gone down hill and for the past 12-18 months I have been shocked on multiple occasions at the people/amount of people who have been banned. Most of those banned seem to be old timers. Like, what did BTinSF do to get banned? Half of the SF threads we still post in were started by him. He was clearly a proficient poster, who still contributes meaningfully on other sites (Socketsite for one).

SSC went downhill for a while, but seems to be picking up as people from here seem to be going back there. I dunno, just a thought. We have touchy new posters, young moderators who themselves are just as guilty of "breaking rules" as posters themselves, and lots of major contributors suddenly banned. WTF that's not a recipe for success. The more one contributes, the more things should be overlooked. Nowadays it seems that a poster of less than a full year who hasn't put up any original pictures or any groundbreaking news shouldn't be able to complain to a new/younger mod about a long time poster who has contributed countless photos, started countless important threads, and contributed useful information for 5-10-15 years and have that person banned. But that's just me. I believe in giving people breaks, giving priorities to people who would in reality deserve it, etc.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Ok but since you have the power now that you are moderator and all and since I asked you, please delete my post, referenced above. It has no meaning since the entirety of the rest of the conversation was deleted.



I disagree with this, mostly.

On a sidenote, moderating (and posting) on this site has gone down hill and for the past 12-18 months I have been shocked on multiple occasions at the people/amount of people who have been banned. Most of those banned seem to be old timers. Like, what did BTinSF do to get banned? Half of the SF threads we still post in were started by him. He was clearly a proficient poster, who still contributes meaningfully on other sites (Socketsite for one).

SSC went downhill for a while, but seems to be picking up as people from here seem to be going back there. I dunno, just a thought. We have touchy new posters, young moderators who themselves are just as guilty of "breaking rules" as posters themselves, and lots of major contributors suddenly banned. WTF that's not a recipe for success. The more one contributes, the more things should be overlooked. Nowadays it seems that a poster of less than a full year who hasn't put up any original pictures or any groundbreaking news shouldn't be able to complain to a new/younger mod about a long time poster who has contributed countless photos, started countless important threads, and contributed useful information for 5-10-15 years and have that person banned. But that's just me. I believe in giving people breaks, giving priorities to people who would in reality deserve it, etc.

I haven't noticed much of a problem with moderating here, and I've been here for a decade. And I don't why you think people who contribute or have been members awhile shouldn't have the rules apply to them, or why you claim that people never get second chances on SSP before getting banned. As for BTinSF, he was banned for having multiple accounts, if I'm not mistaken...which is a rule many internet forums have. That was a long time ago though.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by tech12

I haven't noticed much of a problem with moderating here, and I've been here for a decade. And I don't why you think people who contribute or have been members awhile shouldn't have the rules apply to them, or why you claim that people never get second chances on SSP before getting banned. As for BTinSF, he was banned for having multiple accounts, if I'm not mistaken...which is a rule many internet forums have. That was a long time ago though.

BTinSF was great and still missed here, but perhaps he devoted too much of his time here when he did. I'm am guessing he may have known this, and might have been testing the possibility of being finally released from his obsession. If this was the case, it worked.

[fflint]

I was a moderator and then an administrator on this website for about 10 of the 15 years I've been around here. Trust me, people are always given "second chances" before anything approaching banishment, which has always been a last resort.

Let's be real--this is the Internet. This is a discussion forum. As with every other such site, some people are just spoiled brats who think the rules don't apply to them--you know, Mommy never said 'no' and now they expect to be treated like little princes. Others deliberately break rules and taunt moderation into doing something about it, oftentimes in the hopes sympathetic forumers will protest and cause further disruption. Still others are just hopelessly clueless. A few are absolutely malicious. Over the course of years, there have actually been death threats aimed at mods and admins. Regular forumers have no idea what actually goes on behind the scenes here. It's sometimes very ugly.

BTinSF was given probably ten 'second chances' but the last time he was suspended for trolling, he just started up a second account and resumed the same conversations that got him suspended in the first place. It was the last straw. He also trolls our local newspaper website and a few other local sites in addition to other SSP-like sites.

Anyway, let's get back on topic. Threads like this in the 'construction' subforums are expected to be more professional, more informative, and much more on-topic than the more general conversational subforums. An admininstrator rightly came in here to end the off-topic Philadelphia v. San Francisco and Los Angeles v. San Francisco bickering. Homers from other cities should take note: this isn't the thread to boost your particular hometown. Locals: this isn't the thread to start 'versus' fights.