Would you support a 1000' tower in downtown SF?

[kenratboy]

As in, NOT the Transbay project, but say between Transamerica and the BofA building? Obviously, this would have to be an architecturally-significant building - and unlike Transbay, there would probably be a lot of opposition (but thats besides the point).

Do you think this part of the city is good as it is, or would a major tower be a benefit?

This is a 100% 'in theory' question, absolutely NO basis in reality.

[Reminiscence]

I think if you ask people right now, they'll tell you its out of place. In the future no doubt, but right now, the place to build that magnitude is in the vicinity of the Transbay Terminal. Had Transamerica been built at its original height of 1,150', I think we would have already seen such a tower built to compliment it. There is somewhat of a tabletop effect in the downtown core, so a few towers taller than the rest would be a welcome for me and I would support it (or at least would not oppose it).

[EastBayHardCore]

I probably wouldn't support it as most of those blocks is the traditional FiDi are smaller and are broken up by functional and interesting alleys. In addition there is a good diversity of buildings, which I would hate to see disrupted by a huge hulking 1000ft tower that erases all of the stuff I mentioned above. The only place I see a supertall fitting in would be in the new FiDi to the south, around the TBT.

[BTinSF]

I'd support it anywhere in the downtown area (Financial District on both sides of Market St.) I HATE the "table top" look that height limits have imposed on SF. Land that valuable should be allowed to achieve the best economic use and if that is achieved by more height, so be it. Don't forget that buildings cost much more as they get very high (it's not a matter of twice the height = twice the cost) so it may turn out that in SF the economics don't support thousand-footers, but if they do such buildings should be built.

I also hate the idea that committees of self-important politically connected do-gooders (like those on the Planning Commission) get to modify the vision of good architects and impose their tunnel vision on the cityscape. There is much about San Francisco that is just too "precious".

[kenratboy]

Well said. A free-market skyline (in terms of height) is a good one.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

i would support one to break up the table top

[Symi81]

It would be out-of-scale and, unless very thin, cast a giant shadow in its wake. IMHO, proliferation of mega-buildings would severely hurt the character the financial district currently enjoys. San Francisco already has a fantastic skyline, the City does not need a mega-building to improve it. Sorry to disappoint the folks who put the economic interests of private mega-developers and commercial real-estate corporations over the interests of the local community.

[krudmonk]

One supertall seems rather obnoxious and very unsightly. The pyramid is a big part of the skyline but I wonder how it would remain such if dwarfed by one of these proposed new buildings.

[craeg]

Originally Posted by Symi81

It would be out-of-scale and, unless very thin, cast a giant shadow in its wake. IMHO, proliferation of mega-buildings would severely hurt the character the financial district currently enjoys. San Francisco already has a fantastic skyline, the City does not need a mega-building to improve it. Sorry to disappoint the folks who put the economic interests of private mega-developers and commercial real-estate corporations over the interests of the local community.

Good thing a decent portion of the local community supports raising the height limits to support infrastructure improvements. Failing to point out this significant point out in your argument renders it merely a hot air sound bite railing against nothing in particular.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Symi81

proliferation of mega-buildings would severely hurt the character the financial district currently enjoys.

Huh? Pray elucidate the "character" of the Financial District if it is not composed of big buildings, most of which are far less distinguished than a new is likely to be.

[Jerry of San Fran]

The city will change whether or not we want it to. I have lived in my apartment for 36 years on the 27th floor and have seen my view of downtown/bay change dramatically. With all of the new buildings going up we will barely notice the 1000' building in five years. I will only see the top 200' of the new transbay terminal. I look at the change in a positive way - my view is dynamic.

[_J_]

I would support such a tower not between the BofA and TransAm towers, but between those towers and the Market St transit corridor *IF* said tower was mixed use and included hotel and/or residential. That area is in desperate need of residents IMHO.