4 ms·
> to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. On the other hand, why do people n
by codedokode 7y ago
> to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old.
On the other hand, why do people need to build a new, ugly modern high-rise buildings in historical parts of the city? Is there not enough of other land?
Historical parts better stay historical forever and there should be no new buildings, I think. Because no tourist will ever come to see modern, ugly concrete buildings.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoThere can't be that many historic buildings in a city that burned to the ground in 1906, yet somehow we have historic auto-body shops, historic bars, historic music halls converted to comedy clubs, historic crab restaurants...
- mactrey 7y agohttps://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg https://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg Historic, historic, architecturally beautiful, indescribably beautiful San Francisco...
- meddlepal 7y agoKind of a waste of such a nice street grid for such low density housing.
- rayiner 7y agoWaste of a lovely bayside location. Imagine how much better that water view would look contrasted against modern glass and steel skyscrapers: https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/05082506/iStock-511665488.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-c....
- solidsnack9000 7y agoIt could even be nice with two or three story buildings.
- tasubotadas 7y agoAnd then people wonder why the city isn't investing in public transport.