8 ms·

San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech

58 points by rising-sky 9y ago

joeblau 9y ago
I've been out of SF almost 2 years to the day. I went back for Christmas and was driving around and BOY has the downtown SOMA area east of 4th street changed. So many new apartments and condos popping up. The new train station is going in. Sales Force 1 sticks out of the sky. It's crazy, but for some reason I can't wait to move back.
banku_brougham 9y ago
I can’t be bothered to read the article, I’m just here to complain about the clickbait title some editor slapped on there. I was in SF recently. That one building is indeed tall, however not from any of the many angles that I viewed the skyline did i consider it ‘inescapably transformed.’ SF has a bunch if tall buildings, this one fits
fatjokes 9y ago
Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel the writer has an axe to grind.
- losteric 9y ago
  I'm a fan of high-density work spaces, as long as they're built in tandem with high-density residential spaces and high-density transportation systems. San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment when compared with Manhattan's subway: * Manhattan subway map: https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg * Bay Area subway map: https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif * Manhattan compared to SF: https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg - the entire first subway map fits in the white space of this one Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small. More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology (boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where Musk's Boring Company comes into play.
  - ihodes 9y ago
    The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968). Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968).
    - losteric 9y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know about that tool. Better than the images I provided. Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.
    - jacques_chester 9y ago
      I've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan. Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2. By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.
      - DerekL 9y ago
        Where did you get 18,500/km^2 for San Francisco? 870,887 / 121.46 km^2 = 7170. More like Queens, not Brooklyn.
        jacques_chester 9y ago
        Ah, I got it wrong. Mixed miles and square kilometres.
      - surrealize 9y ago
        You mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as dense). Your SF number is people per square mile, not per square km. Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2 Manhattan ~69,400/m^2 all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
- henrikschroder 9y ago
  Yeah, the whole article is one giant "sic transit gloria mundi". And yet, the city grows bigger and taller every year. And that's awesome. Fuck the NIMBY crowd.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    I’m sure there’s a pun in there about “sick transit”.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Skyscapers are fine, but the housing in them can really only be so cheap, since they're inherently expensive to build. SF could do with a lot more low- and mid-rise buildings too.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    They are also very expensive to maintain which is why they are often sold after a decade or two often below cost.
  - ng12 9y ago
    For sure. By area, SF is still mostly single-family homes. Neighborhoods like the Sunset and Forest Hills are shockingly underdeveloped.
- RickHull 9y ago
  Yeah -- "inescapably"? Tyler Cowen would call this mood affiliation.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  Indeed, the twin towers alone were capable of accomodating Google and Apple who currently exist as gigantic suburban sprawl Imagine all of that replaced by public transportation and two buildings NYC is no wonderland with its antiquated infrastructure but get it together Cali
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
abritinthebay 9y ago
This seems needless. It’s big, yes, but it’s no different to the TransAmerica Pyramid. It’s more newsworthy that it’s the first major one in so long tbh
- gumby 9y ago
  The TransAmerica pyramid and its travails are discussed in the article. It was different.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Not really. The article is utterly unconvincing there. The writer obviously chose a conclusion and tried to make it fit. It’s a very weak piece if you don’t come into it with the same conclusions
andymcsherry 9y ago
This building was designed and begun without any Salesforce involvement. Only after did they put their name on it and lease the office space. It would have been built with or without Salesforce.
- boulos 9y ago
  While it's true that they're only leasing part of it (and thus got their name added later), it was still built to serve some hoped for tech company office. So while I'm not in agreement with the article, the point is that tech companies caused this to be built.
doomlaser 9y ago
The number of skyscrapers being built in the US pales in comparison to other parts of the world today. Besides Salesforce Tower, there's the upcoming Vista Tower in Chicago, and a few in New York: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/country/united-states http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/country/united-states I'd like to see more, as well as maybe a focus on more detailed craftsmanship along with pioneering engineering. That story mentions the original Call building in SF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Call_building.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Call_bui... I'd love to see a resurgence of that kind of stonework and masonry in elements of future architecture. What has happened to all the basic brick and granite structured ornamentation, and the elaborate tilework in modern buildings?
- mc32 9y ago
  Maybe it's pent up demand after a lull that lasted a few decades. It's just a feeling, but I don't recall much building happening in the 90s and 00s. Not that there wasn't any at all, but it seems after the 70s boom, there was a tapering off and a resurgence in the late 00s. Could be wrong though.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    The entire China Basin area exploded in developments in the wake of the ballpark construction (Pacific Bell Park opened April 2000).
    - mc32 9y ago
      True. I'd consider those mid-rises though whereas the article is talking more generally about high rises.
- briga 9y ago
  >I'd love to see a resurgence of that kind of stonework and masonry in elements of future architecture. What has happened to all the basic brick and granite structured ornamentation, and the elaborate tilework in modern buildings? This is just speculation, but I suspect it has something to do with maintenance. There are tons of beautifully detailed stone buildings in New York, but half of them are either weathered and run down or in the process of being fixed up. Also I think modern architecture has moved away from detailed carving in favor of more minimalist designs.
cylinder 9y ago
Oh no, not a skyscraper! We must preserve the city in the New World which is only a couple hundred years old as a museum! /s
ladon86 9y ago
Here’s a grainy photo of the Salesforce tower I took while flying out of San Francisco on a foggy day earlier this week. https://i.imgur.com/qdGUhc1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qdGUhc1.jpg It would be pretty fun to be on a higher floor on a day like this!
- anonfunction 9y ago
  Wow, I look at the building everyday but this is the first I've seen it from that vantage point. Thanks for sharing. Found another photo that is a little closer: https://i.imgur.com/Px7Apnq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Px7Apnq.jpg
kristopolous 9y ago
San Francisco grows at a positively glacial pace compared to even mature cities like London. Heck, even downtown Los Angeles rapidly outpaces SF in construction. While at the same time SF arguably has more money and demand for growth then both those places by a giant margin. I wouldn't be surprised if Sacramento is adding more leasable square footage a year than SF. It's not tech that's ruined the city, it's anti-growth NIMBYs that have caused the existing real estate prices to fly off to the Moon and critical infrastructure to stall in the courts for years. If the argument is about "increased traffic" then they're simply wrong. Forcing people to drive in from El Sobrante or San Leandro because of a refusal to build more convenient housing, that's the policy that causes more traffic. Homes will be built somewhere. If it's against the carbon footprint of new construction then use carbon negative cement, have rooftop gardens, and use solar windows. We need to start transforming our cities anyway. And if the argument is against "greedy developers" then work on not for profit community housing projects built on land trusts. "Build nothing" is not a reasonable option
- junkscience2017 9y ago
  but NIMBYs still have not had their core claim dismissed: that new residential capacity is not being augmented with better transportation infrastructure or even schools. most NIMBYs gave up on neighborhood parks, they seem just impossible now. amusingly, even retail is being shunned (residential is build, sell and move on, which is why places like Silver Creek in San Jose only have one tiny pathetic market for 5k homes). most cities now have to force retail components on to developers if you live in the US, chances are you attended a public school built by a developer in exchange for development rights, and the school was accessible by a road also built by the developer. the park was set aside as such and not filled with homes; instead the developer paid to put in a swingset and a tennis court now developers refuse to augment transportation infrastructure or build schools (and it is illegal to decline a development due to predicted pressure on local school), and NIMBYs want to know why. all they get in response are downvotes on message boards or personal attacks thousands new rental units are going up along Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara...but no new road capacity and no new schools, and no parks or open space at all. what kind of a community would you like to live in? in a few years the same urban professionals who are the core of the YIMBYs will be freaking out about no schools or parks, because they are going to want them.
capkutay 9y ago
I just hate the design of salesforce tower. it's a recycled take at the architects same building in Hong Kong and Santiago[0,1]. Not sure why you would make such a landmark, dominant building look so unoriginal and unremarkable. 0: https://www.google.com/search?q=pelli+hong+kong&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_2au8g7PYAhVrlVQKHWx3Bv8Q_AUIDSgE&biw=1440&bih=762 https://www.google.com/search?q=pelli+hong+kong&source=lnms&... 1: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=762&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=xDNIWqOgMqTb0gKy64_ADw&q=pelli+san+tiago&oq=pelli+san+tiago&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1367.4672.0.4818.11.11.0.0.0.0.105.649.5j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.291...0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i67k1.0.RHRGYu7Nw-s https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=762&tbm=isch&sa=1...
- teekno 9y ago
  I'm neither an architect nor a designer, but my gut reaction is that you can only get so creative at 1,070′. Without any evidence to back this up, I'm going to say that physics will force most skyscraper designs to converge.
  - teekno 9y ago
    But yes, it's not particularly beautiful or original
    - anonfunction 9y ago
      If you look at the tallest buildings they all have unique designs. http://www.hearandplay.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/tallestbuilding.jpg http://www.hearandplay.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/t...
    - capkutay 9y ago
      The competing design for transbay (salesforce) tower was much nicer but their group didn't win because they bid less money on the project. [0] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zKV9lrNlb8M/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zKV9lrNlb8M/maxresdefault.jpg 0: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/09/pelli_clarke_pelli_and_hines_bid_the_most_and_get_the_n.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/09/pelli_clarke_pell...
justaaron 9y ago
eye-roll... as if the existing skyline wasn't composed by corporate temples to greed like the transamerican building? It's like when the people who gentrified SF yesterday complain about the people doing it today... news-flash, it's always been an expensive pretentious place to live and do business, and yes, it's always smelled rather rotten and moldy as well...
teekno 9y ago
A recent trip to Hong Kong really highlighted San Francisco's inability to handle a rising population density. As of mid-2014, HK's population was 7.24 million across the Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories [1]. The main Island alone has a population density of 16,390/km^2 with an area of 78.59 km^2 [2]. The city is covered in high rises and there is still a drastic housing crisis [6]. However, public transportation was readily available, on-time, affordable, and clean. I was able to travel across the region, to/from Macau, and to/from Shenzhen using only these services. At no point did I need to call a Lyft/Uber/Didi/taxi. Looking at the 9-county portion of the Bay Area, we have a population density of 425.7/km^2 over 18,040 km^2 [3][4]. I realize it's more difficult to support a larger region with accessible public transit, so let's focus on the 7x7 in the city: 7,170/km^2 over 121.46 km^2 [5][7]. Over 40+ km^2 with under half of the population and we can barely keep MUNI/BART running, residents can't afford rent increases, and employees are commuting hours to reach the city [8]. How is the city so far behind HK with a 2016 GDP $470.5 billion (compared to HK's 2016 GDP of $319.7 billion) [9][10]? These articles that complain about skyscrapers changing the skyline or ruining the historic feel of the city drive me nuts. How else will the city be able to keep up with the growing housing demand? We're on a peninsula - we have a fixed area in which we can build. The construction of SF tower has brought 60-ish floors of new employee space into the city without providing an equivalent number of apartments (yes, there are condos but those are certainly not housing all new employees). As these office high rises are constructed, we need to be pumping investments into public transit (a new 60 floors worth of employees will now be commuting within the city) and high rise apartments. They don't need to be luxury apartments (ie. Jasper) but affordable options that can house more than the standard 3 story house in Pacific Heights. [1] https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/population.pdf https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/populati... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/feature_article/B70906FC2009XXXXB0100.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statis... [3] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties-total.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties... [4] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-me... [5] https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/2016_Gazetteer/2016_gaz_place_06.txt https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/20... [6] http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-housing-crisis-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-housin... [7] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667000,00 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667... [8] I'm getting tired of finding citations, but there have been numerous articles re:housing/transit/commute posted to hacker news these past few months [9] https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf/gdp_metro0917.pdf https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf... [10] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weo...
boulos 9y ago
> The skyscraper came late to this city, a shipping and manufacturing hub for much of its existence. Huh? The Pac Bell building (which Yelp is now in) is a classic 1920s skyscraper [1]. San Francisco never ended up with as many tall buildings as say NYC, but that's also partly a function of city size. NYC had 5.6M people in 1920 [2], while San Francisco was about 500,000 [3]. Even if you compare just to Manhattan to avoid metropolitan area comparisons, we're talking about 2.5M almost (so 5x). If anything, it would be apt to say that skyscrapers never caught on in San Francisco like they did in Manhattan. New York currently has ~10x as many skyscrapers (buildings taller than 150m) than San Francisco [4 and 5]. The article even goes on to point out that early newspaper folks competed over tall buildings: > San Francisco has always been like this. There were so few skyscrapers in the city’s first century that the ones that were built tell a tale of rampant egos and unrestrained power. At the end of the 19th century, the city’s newspapers had hubris and wealth to rival today’s internet companies. In 1890, the owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, M. H. de Young, erected a 10-story building worthy of his publication. It was the tallest building on the West Coast. The Bay Area is just spread out compared to NYC. It developed much later and wasn't a big city before automobiles were popular (and didn't have a real metro until 1980!). With Silicon Valley being in the peninsula, and tech only developing somewhat recently, San Francisco simply wasn't that big of a commercial city (in comparison to New York) to dictate large skyscrapers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_New_Montgomery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_New_Montgomery [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_Y... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in... [5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Francisco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in...
andirk 9y ago
Let's be honest: it looks like a sleeved dick. We Bay Area people call it Salesforceskin.
sytelus 9y ago
SalesForce Tower looks like one hack of a ugly building. Does anyone else feel buildings in US are becoming exceedingly bland and uncreative in architecture? Just look at skyscrapers in places like Singapore, Dubai or Shanghai and you would be amazed at diversity and imaginativeness of people who built them.
- azinman2 9y ago
  Ironically largely from western architects.
surrealize 9y ago
What is up with the NYT being negative about the tech sector? Especially on the west coast. Can you imagine the headline: "Manhattan’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Finance"

58 points by rising-sky 9y ago

I've been out of SF almost 2 years to the day. I went back for Christmas and was driving around and BOY has the downtown SOMA area east of 4th street changed. So many new apartments and condos popping up. The new train station is going in. Sales Force 1 sticks out of the sky. It's crazy, but for some reason I can't wait to move back.

banku_brougham 9y ago

I can’t be bothered to read the article, I’m just here to complain about the clickbait title some editor slapped on there. I was in SF recently. That one building is indeed tall, however not from any of the many angles that I viewed the skyline did i consider it ‘inescapably transformed.’ SF has a bunch if tall buildings, this one fits

fatjokes 9y ago

Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel the writer has an axe to grind.

losteric 9y ago
I'm a fan of high-density work spaces, as long as they're built in tandem with high-density residential spaces and high-density transportation systems. San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment when compared with Manhattan's subway: * Manhattan subway map: https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg * Bay Area subway map: https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif * Manhattan compared to SF: https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg - the entire first subway map fits in the white space of this one Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small. More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology (boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where Musk's Boring Company comes into play.
- ihodes 9y ago
  The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968). Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968).
  - losteric 9y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know about that tool. Better than the images I provided. Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.
  - jacques_chester 9y ago
    I've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan. Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2. By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.
    - DerekL 9y ago
      Where did you get 18,500/km^2 for San Francisco? 870,887 / 121.46 km^2 = 7170. More like Queens, not Brooklyn.
      - jacques_chester 9y ago
        Ah, I got it wrong. Mixed miles and square kilometres.
    - surrealize 9y ago
      You mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as dense). Your SF number is people per square mile, not per square km. Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2 Manhattan ~69,400/m^2 all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
henrikschroder 9y ago
Yeah, the whole article is one giant "sic transit gloria mundi". And yet, the city grows bigger and taller every year. And that's awesome. Fuck the NIMBY crowd.
- SilasX 9y ago
  I’m sure there’s a pun in there about “sick transit”.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Skyscapers are fine, but the housing in them can really only be so cheap, since they're inherently expensive to build. SF could do with a lot more low- and mid-rise buildings too.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  They are also very expensive to maintain which is why they are often sold after a decade or two often below cost.
- ng12 9y ago
  For sure. By area, SF is still mostly single-family homes. Neighborhoods like the Sunset and Forest Hills are shockingly underdeveloped.
RickHull 9y ago
Yeah -- "inescapably"? Tyler Cowen would call this mood affiliation.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Indeed, the twin towers alone were capable of accomodating Google and Apple who currently exist as gigantic suburban sprawl Imagine all of that replaced by public transportation and two buildings NYC is no wonderland with its antiquated infrastructure but get it together Cali

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

abritinthebay 9y ago

This seems needless. It’s big, yes, but it’s no different to the TransAmerica Pyramid. It’s more newsworthy that it’s the first major one in so long tbh

gumby 9y ago
The TransAmerica pyramid and its travails are discussed in the article. It was different.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Not really. The article is utterly unconvincing there. The writer obviously chose a conclusion and tried to make it fit. It’s a very weak piece if you don’t come into it with the same conclusions

andymcsherry 9y ago

This building was designed and begun without any Salesforce involvement. Only after did they put their name on it and lease the office space. It would have been built with or without Salesforce.

boulos 9y ago
While it's true that they're only leasing part of it (and thus got their name added later), it was still built to serve some hoped for tech company office. So while I'm not in agreement with the article, the point is that tech companies caused this to be built.

doomlaser 9y ago

The number of skyscrapers being built in the US pales in comparison to other parts of the world today. Besides Salesforce Tower, there's the upcoming Vista Tower in Chicago, and a few in New York: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/country/united-states http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/country/united-states I'd like to see more, as well as maybe a focus on more detailed craftsmanship along with pioneering engineering. That story mentions the original Call building in SF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Call_building.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Call_bui... I'd love to see a resurgence of that kind of stonework and masonry in elements of future architecture. What has happened to all the basic brick and granite structured ornamentation, and the elaborate tilework in modern buildings?

mc32 9y ago
Maybe it's pent up demand after a lull that lasted a few decades. It's just a feeling, but I don't recall much building happening in the 90s and 00s. Not that there wasn't any at all, but it seems after the 70s boom, there was a tapering off and a resurgence in the late 00s. Could be wrong though.
- DrScump 9y ago
  The entire China Basin area exploded in developments in the wake of the ballpark construction (Pacific Bell Park opened April 2000).
  - mc32 9y ago
    True. I'd consider those mid-rises though whereas the article is talking more generally about high rises.
briga 9y ago
>I'd love to see a resurgence of that kind of stonework and masonry in elements of future architecture. What has happened to all the basic brick and granite structured ornamentation, and the elaborate tilework in modern buildings? This is just speculation, but I suspect it has something to do with maintenance. There are tons of beautifully detailed stone buildings in New York, but half of them are either weathered and run down or in the process of being fixed up. Also I think modern architecture has moved away from detailed carving in favor of more minimalist designs.

cylinder 9y ago

Oh no, not a skyscraper! We must preserve the city in the New World which is only a couple hundred years old as a museum! /s

ladon86 9y ago

Here’s a grainy photo of the Salesforce tower I took while flying out of San Francisco on a foggy day earlier this week. https://i.imgur.com/qdGUhc1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qdGUhc1.jpg It would be pretty fun to be on a higher floor on a day like this!

anonfunction 9y ago
Wow, I look at the building everyday but this is the first I've seen it from that vantage point. Thanks for sharing. Found another photo that is a little closer: https://i.imgur.com/Px7Apnq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Px7Apnq.jpg

kristopolous 9y ago

San Francisco grows at a positively glacial pace compared to even mature cities like London. Heck, even downtown Los Angeles rapidly outpaces SF in construction. While at the same time SF arguably has more money and demand for growth then both those places by a giant margin. I wouldn't be surprised if Sacramento is adding more leasable square footage a year than SF. It's not tech that's ruined the city, it's anti-growth NIMBYs that have caused the existing real estate prices to fly off to the Moon and critical infrastructure to stall in the courts for years. If the argument is about "increased traffic" then they're simply wrong. Forcing people to drive in from El Sobrante or San Leandro because of a refusal to build more convenient housing, that's the policy that causes more traffic. Homes will be built somewhere. If it's against the carbon footprint of new construction then use carbon negative cement, have rooftop gardens, and use solar windows. We need to start transforming our cities anyway. And if the argument is against "greedy developers" then work on not for profit community housing projects built on land trusts. "Build nothing" is not a reasonable option

junkscience2017 9y ago
but NIMBYs still have not had their core claim dismissed: that new residential capacity is not being augmented with better transportation infrastructure or even schools. most NIMBYs gave up on neighborhood parks, they seem just impossible now. amusingly, even retail is being shunned (residential is build, sell and move on, which is why places like Silver Creek in San Jose only have one tiny pathetic market for 5k homes). most cities now have to force retail components on to developers if you live in the US, chances are you attended a public school built by a developer in exchange for development rights, and the school was accessible by a road also built by the developer. the park was set aside as such and not filled with homes; instead the developer paid to put in a swingset and a tennis court now developers refuse to augment transportation infrastructure or build schools (and it is illegal to decline a development due to predicted pressure on local school), and NIMBYs want to know why. all they get in response are downvotes on message boards or personal attacks thousands new rental units are going up along Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara...but no new road capacity and no new schools, and no parks or open space at all. what kind of a community would you like to live in? in a few years the same urban professionals who are the core of the YIMBYs will be freaking out about no schools or parks, because they are going to want them.

capkutay 9y ago

I just hate the design of salesforce tower. it's a recycled take at the architects same building in Hong Kong and Santiago[0,1]. Not sure why you would make such a landmark, dominant building look so unoriginal and unremarkable. 0: https://www.google.com/search?q=pelli+hong+kong&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_2au8g7PYAhVrlVQKHWx3Bv8Q_AUIDSgE&biw=1440&bih=762 https://www.google.com/search?q=pelli+hong+kong&source=lnms&... 1: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=762&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=xDNIWqOgMqTb0gKy64_ADw&q=pelli+san+tiago&oq=pelli+san+tiago&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1367.4672.0.4818.11.11.0.0.0.0.105.649.5j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.291...0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i67k1.0.RHRGYu7Nw-s https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=762&tbm=isch&sa=1...

teekno 9y ago
I'm neither an architect nor a designer, but my gut reaction is that you can only get so creative at 1,070′. Without any evidence to back this up, I'm going to say that physics will force most skyscraper designs to converge.
- teekno 9y ago
  But yes, it's not particularly beautiful or original
  - anonfunction 9y ago
    If you look at the tallest buildings they all have unique designs. http://www.hearandplay.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/tallestbuilding.jpg http://www.hearandplay.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/t...
  - capkutay 9y ago
    The competing design for transbay (salesforce) tower was much nicer but their group didn't win because they bid less money on the project. [0] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zKV9lrNlb8M/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zKV9lrNlb8M/maxresdefault.jpg 0: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/09/pelli_clarke_pelli_and_hines_bid_the_most_and_get_the_n.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/09/pelli_clarke_pell...

justaaron 9y ago

eye-roll... as if the existing skyline wasn't composed by corporate temples to greed like the transamerican building? It's like when the people who gentrified SF yesterday complain about the people doing it today... news-flash, it's always been an expensive pretentious place to live and do business, and yes, it's always smelled rather rotten and moldy as well...

teekno 9y ago

A recent trip to Hong Kong really highlighted San Francisco's inability to handle a rising population density. As of mid-2014, HK's population was 7.24 million across the Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories [1]. The main Island alone has a population density of 16,390/km^2 with an area of 78.59 km^2 [2]. The city is covered in high rises and there is still a drastic housing crisis [6]. However, public transportation was readily available, on-time, affordable, and clean. I was able to travel across the region, to/from Macau, and to/from Shenzhen using only these services. At no point did I need to call a Lyft/Uber/Didi/taxi. Looking at the 9-county portion of the Bay Area, we have a population density of 425.7/km^2 over 18,040 km^2 [3][4]. I realize it's more difficult to support a larger region with accessible public transit, so let's focus on the 7x7 in the city: 7,170/km^2 over 121.46 km^2 [5][7]. Over 40+ km^2 with under half of the population and we can barely keep MUNI/BART running, residents can't afford rent increases, and employees are commuting hours to reach the city [8]. How is the city so far behind HK with a 2016 GDP $470.5 billion (compared to HK's 2016 GDP of $319.7 billion) [9][10]? These articles that complain about skyscrapers changing the skyline or ruining the historic feel of the city drive me nuts. How else will the city be able to keep up with the growing housing demand? We're on a peninsula - we have a fixed area in which we can build. The construction of SF tower has brought 60-ish floors of new employee space into the city without providing an equivalent number of apartments (yes, there are condos but those are certainly not housing all new employees). As these office high rises are constructed, we need to be pumping investments into public transit (a new 60 floors worth of employees will now be commuting within the city) and high rise apartments. They don't need to be luxury apartments (ie. Jasper) but affordable options that can house more than the standard 3 story house in Pacific Heights. [1] https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/population.pdf https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/populati... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/feature_article/B70906FC2009XXXXB0100.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statis... [3] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties-total.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties... [4] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-me... [5] https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/2016_Gazetteer/2016_gaz_place_06.txt https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/20... [6] http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-housing-crisis-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-housin... [7] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667000,00 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667... [8] I'm getting tired of finding citations, but there have been numerous articles re:housing/transit/commute posted to hacker news these past few months [9] https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf/gdp_metro0917.pdf https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf... [10] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weo...

boulos 9y ago

> The skyscraper came late to this city, a shipping and manufacturing hub for much of its existence. Huh? The Pac Bell building (which Yelp is now in) is a classic 1920s skyscraper [1]. San Francisco never ended up with as many tall buildings as say NYC, but that's also partly a function of city size. NYC had 5.6M people in 1920 [2], while San Francisco was about 500,000 [3]. Even if you compare just to Manhattan to avoid metropolitan area comparisons, we're talking about 2.5M almost (so 5x). If anything, it would be apt to say that skyscrapers never caught on in San Francisco like they did in Manhattan. New York currently has ~10x as many skyscrapers (buildings taller than 150m) than San Francisco [4 and 5]. The article even goes on to point out that early newspaper folks competed over tall buildings: > San Francisco has always been like this. There were so few skyscrapers in the city’s first century that the ones that were built tell a tale of rampant egos and unrestrained power. At the end of the 19th century, the city’s newspapers had hubris and wealth to rival today’s internet companies. In 1890, the owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, M. H. de Young, erected a 10-story building worthy of his publication. It was the tallest building on the West Coast. The Bay Area is just spread out compared to NYC. It developed much later and wasn't a big city before automobiles were popular (and didn't have a real metro until 1980!). With Silicon Valley being in the peninsula, and tech only developing somewhat recently, San Francisco simply wasn't that big of a commercial city (in comparison to New York) to dictate large skyscrapers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_New_Montgomery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_New_Montgomery [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_Y... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in... [5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Francisco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in...

andirk 9y ago

Let's be honest: it looks like a sleeved dick. We Bay Area people call it Salesforceskin.

sytelus 9y ago

SalesForce Tower looks like one hack of a ugly building. Does anyone else feel buildings in US are becoming exceedingly bland and uncreative in architecture? Just look at skyscrapers in places like Singapore, Dubai or Shanghai and you would be amazed at diversity and imaginativeness of people who built them.

azinman2 9y ago
Ironically largely from western architects.

surrealize 9y ago

What is up with the NYT being negative about the tech sector? Especially on the west coast. Can you imagine the headline: "Manhattan’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Finance"