4 ms·

Just a random opinion from someone who doesn't live in SF: I like to visit SF because of the architecture. It really is what makes it unique in the United Sta

Just a random opinion from someone who doesn't live in SF: I like to visit SF because of the architecture. It really is what makes it unique in the United States. It would be a shame to lose that.

tdaltonc 10y ago
It's possible to have municipal deign standard for public facades, but still build new stuff.
ng12 10y ago
Nobody is asking to bulldoze the Painted Ladies or Lombard. The problem is more about the Sunset, the Richmond, Forest Hills, Excelsior -- just these huge sweeping neighborhoods which are incredibly underzoned and underdeveloped. Or the people who fight development in SOMA because it blocks part of their view.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Sunset is the strangest place I've ever seen from the air. A totally regular grid of housing with no almost no open spaces at all. Maybe you can't see it from the air but are there even community spaces where people gather? I can't even see any shopping or restaurant areas. It's all just regular roads. I can't imagine how you could make it any more developed. There isn't an inch of breathing space is there? If you built up how would anyone get around? In higher rise places even like London there are parks and a variety of spaces and variation in the layout to get around the extra vertical density.
  - troygoode 10y ago
    I live in the Sunset. We have plenty of small parks and the Sunset runs the entire length of the enormous Golden Gate park, which stretches across half the city. There are plenty of restaurants and shops, most of which is not yet gentrified, and they just fit into the regular grid as mixed-use urban buildings (restaurant on the street level, apartments on the floor(s) above. There are no strip malls, big box stores, etc. Like much of the city, developing it further would likely mean building "up", yes. There are also an enormous number of single family homes in the Sunset, some of which could be converted into multi family apartment buildings to increase density. All that said, I'm not clear on how you'd actually accomplish the above. My family and I live here BECAUSE we wanted a single family home, a backyard, etc. SF obviously needs a vast increase in residential availability, but I'm certainly not the guy to ask about how to make it happen.
    - chrisseaton 10y ago
      I'm sure it must be nice on the ground in reality as so many people want to live there, but it looks positively dystopian on a satellite image. Hundreds and hundreds of identical crammed blocks on a rigid grid with no green spaces in them. It looks like in some places you'd have to walk six blocks to reach any kind of open space. Other big cities like London are crowded as well but at least no two streets are the same and there's always some breathing space.
blackguardx 10y ago
There is some good architecture in San Francisco, but there are many areas with absolutely terrible architecture. I can't imagine this proposal will produce worse architecture than what already exists.

Just a random opinion from someone who doesn't live in SF: I like to visit SF because of the architecture. It really is what makes it unique in the United States. It would be a shame to lose that.

tdaltonc 10y ago

It's possible to have municipal deign standard for public facades, but still build new stuff.

ng12 10y ago

Nobody is asking to bulldoze the Painted Ladies or Lombard. The problem is more about the Sunset, the Richmond, Forest Hills, Excelsior -- just these huge sweeping neighborhoods which are incredibly underzoned and underdeveloped. Or the people who fight development in SOMA because it blocks part of their view.

chrisseaton 10y ago
Sunset is the strangest place I've ever seen from the air. A totally regular grid of housing with no almost no open spaces at all. Maybe you can't see it from the air but are there even community spaces where people gather? I can't even see any shopping or restaurant areas. It's all just regular roads. I can't imagine how you could make it any more developed. There isn't an inch of breathing space is there? If you built up how would anyone get around? In higher rise places even like London there are parks and a variety of spaces and variation in the layout to get around the extra vertical density.
- troygoode 10y ago
  I live in the Sunset. We have plenty of small parks and the Sunset runs the entire length of the enormous Golden Gate park, which stretches across half the city. There are plenty of restaurants and shops, most of which is not yet gentrified, and they just fit into the regular grid as mixed-use urban buildings (restaurant on the street level, apartments on the floor(s) above. There are no strip malls, big box stores, etc. Like much of the city, developing it further would likely mean building "up", yes. There are also an enormous number of single family homes in the Sunset, some of which could be converted into multi family apartment buildings to increase density. All that said, I'm not clear on how you'd actually accomplish the above. My family and I live here BECAUSE we wanted a single family home, a backyard, etc. SF obviously needs a vast increase in residential availability, but I'm certainly not the guy to ask about how to make it happen.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    I'm sure it must be nice on the ground in reality as so many people want to live there, but it looks positively dystopian on a satellite image. Hundreds and hundreds of identical crammed blocks on a rigid grid with no green spaces in them. It looks like in some places you'd have to walk six blocks to reach any kind of open space. Other big cities like London are crowded as well but at least no two streets are the same and there's always some breathing space.

blackguardx 10y ago

There is some good architecture in San Francisco, but there are many areas with absolutely terrible architecture. I can't imagine this proposal will produce worse architecture than what already exists.