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

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SF_Everest

the value of the Salesforce Tower cannot be underestimated.

From the context, didn't you mean "cannot be OVERestimated"? Because, if I understand you, you seem to be saying some here ARE underestimating it.

[SF_Everest]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

From the context, didn't you mean "cannot be OVERestimated"? Because, if I understand you, you seem to be saying some here ARE underestimating it.

Yes, thank you for clarifying. With the Salesforce Tower (and eagerly anticipating Oceanwide Center, Park Tower, and Parcel F) the skyline is impressive from every angle, instead of trying to find a flattering vantage point like before.

[botoxic]

Post Street, Sergio Ruiz

@sirgious on Twitter

[SFTransplant]

Originally Posted by botoxic

Post Street, Sergio Ruiz

@sirgious on Twitter

Can we call ourselves NYC of the west yet

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by SFTransplant

Can we call ourselves NYC of the west yet

I've long called us the Little Apple or the Little Manhattan.

[Justbuildit]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I've long called us the Little Apple or the Little Manhattan.

How can anyone even relate San Francisco to Manhattan? Lmao!



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

[don116]

If we had better infill development in SoMa, Tenderloin, Mission Bay etc then we could definitely be up there. But SF city planners are just morons.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by don116

If we had better infill development in SoMa, Tenderloin, Mission Bay etc then we could definitely be up there. But SF city planners are just morons.

Why would we want to be "up there"? Do you not appreciate the uniquely beautiful qualities San Francisco already has? If you want more, please go there.

[viewguysf]

I've now joined some of you by using the Ignore List and two people are already there. It's refreshing--thanks for the suggestions!

[don116]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Why would we want to be "up there"? Do you not appreciate the uniquely beautiful qualities San Francisco already has? If you want more, please go there.

That's why I said infill development and specifically named SoMa and Mission Bay. The unique beautiful parts of SF would remain untouched. SF Planning's relentless attraction to 60 ft, full-block rectangle buildings in SoMa and Mission Bay could have been sparse, beautiful towers. The demand is clearly there. The money is there. The bureaucracy is what gave us gems like the Avalon and the Beacon instead.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by don116

That's why I said infill development and specifically named SoMa and Mission Bay. The unique beautiful parts of SF would remain untouched. SF Planning's relentless attraction to 60 ft, full-block rectangle buildings in SoMa and Mission Bay could have been sparse, beautiful towers. The demand is clearly there. The money is there. The bureaucracy is what gave us gems like the Avalon and the Beacon instead.

Interview: SF planning director defends city as more architects allege obstruction
BY ADAM BRINKLOW
APR 11, 2017, 2:04PM PDT

Ever since esteemed San Francisco architect Stanley Saitowitz sounded off with complaints about San Francisco’s city planners, whom he deemed obstructionists, Curbed SF has heard from architects all over the Bay Area about the problems they face designing in the city.

Some are sympathetic about planners’ tricky jobs and heavy workload. Geoff Gibson of Winder Gibson Architects tells Curbed SF that, although he has “a lot of frustrations with the slowness and complexity of the process,” he “truly believe[s] their heart and intentions are in the right place and that they have a good vision for San Francisco overall.”

But many others echoed Saitowitz’s sentiments, like Karin Payson of Payson Architecture + Design, who alleges, “It’s completely maddening. The department decides behind closed doors what to permit, clients pay thousands of dollars in fees in advance, and there’s no recourse. It’s an outrage. It’s corrupt.”

In light of the criticism we spoke with John Rahaim, San Francisco’s planning director since 2008 . . . .

http://sf.curbed.com/2017/4/11/15261...lanning-design

[TWAK]

from 11 april, my photo

[nylkoorB]

Originally Posted by SFTransplant

Can we call ourselves NYC of the west yet

Definitely not NYC, but still easily the best city in the West. Hands down!

[Gonzo the Great]

Originally Posted by nylkoorB

Definitely not NYC, but still easily the best city in the West. Hands down!

Wait a minute ........ isn't SF the home of the " Leaning tower of San Francisco " ??
What makes it the best city in the west . Economy , weather , population , number of tall buildings ...... nope .

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gonzo the Great

Wait a minute ........ isn't SF the home of the " Leaning tower of San Francisco " ??

Yeah units still priced in the millions. Jokes on you.

What makes it the best city in the west . Economy , weather , population , number of tall buildings ...... nope .

There is no urban environment in the West or really outside of NY and Chicago in the US that I would even consider being on par with SF as far as vibrancy+amenities+prestige. Boston rounds out the top 4 downtowns imo.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Gonzo the Great

Wait a minute ........ isn't SF the home of the " Leaning tower of San Francisco " ??
What makes it the best city in the west . Economy , weather , population , number of tall buildings ...... nope .

Natural endowment/physical setting, population density and GDP per capita. It is beautiful and healthy (the air is clean thanks to perpetual breezes off the ocean, the walk scores are among the highest anywhere and people do walk kerping them fit). It is America's second densest city after NY (look at the city, not the metro). And its GDP per capita is very high on a national scale. All that and the history of being unquestionably the economic and financial center of the west with the best natural harbor. Put it together and the city's pride is fully justified.

[mt_climber13]

Unfortunately this is what San Francisco has become



Now can we get back on topic

[iamfishhead]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Now can we get back on topic

Yes. That. There are plenty of other places on the internet you can argue about one city vs another.

[DJ1272]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I've now joined some of you by using the Ignore List and two people are already there. It's refreshing--thanks for the suggestions!

Please tell me how to use this. There's one...person whose posts are so annoying I don't participate in discussions nearly as often as I'd like.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Unfortunately this is what San Francisco has become

Now can we get back on topic

I agree this back and forth is unfortunate but hit/run posts like this won't end it. What will is witholding any response. San Francisco's streets are over-run with homeless because the city allows it, not because it has more poor people or its tolerance of them necessarily detracts from its desirability as a city. In fact it may have fewer. But it also has an attitude that "anything goes" including anti-social public behavior so those it has are out(side in full view) and proud. While one group of San Franciscans complains about things such as your photo depicts, an apparent voting majority sees them as preferable to the alternative of "cracking down" as often happens elsewhere. Hence we keep electing supervisors who are protective of homeless rights. I personally am not in that majority, just to be clear, but I accede to the majority will. And that majority obviously thinks the policies it wants make the city a better place, not a lesser one.

Originally Posted by iamfishhead

Yes. That. There are plenty of other places on the internet you can argue about one city vs another.

What other city has been mentioned?

That's a rhetorical question. Don't answer it unless you want to keep this going and nobody really does except possibly the non-San Franciscans who started it.