5 ms·
It's a concrete candy bar It'd be great if it had a bit more character. Terraces, maybe a public skywalk. These modern buildings are hostile to communities. T
by kristopolous 4y ago
It's a concrete candy bar
It'd be great if it had a bit more character. Terraces, maybe a public skywalk.
These modern buildings are hostile to communities. They look like fortresses.
After we shape a building like that how will it shape us?
- joe_the_user 4y agoTerraces can be nice but I don't think the presence or absence or terraces can correlated with community. I've lived in both apartment complexes and single family neighborhoods and I've known more neighbors when I lived in a complex.
- kristopolous 4y agoI'm not an architect in the slightest. But I've traveled and the modern US building look dull, sterile and hostile compared to what I see in Asia and Europe. If you're going to put in that kind of time and money, try to make something that 50 years from now will be thought of as a culture heritage site
- aobdev 4y agoI'm guessing the renders are not representative of what it will actually look like as the article states that "their initial filing does not provide us with much detail about exterior design". It also seems unlikely that this exact proposal will be approved and constructed as-is.
- jonas21 4y agoYeah, this is just the massing. It's kind of like a wireframe for buildings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massing
- jseliger 4y agoThe building looks great and landowners should be able to build what they want on the land they own. Don't own it? You shouldn't get a say. Imposing restrictions on other people's property led us to today's housing crisis.
- skeeter2020 4y agoSpoken like someone who hasn't had a monstrously out of place building developed beside their home, or an inappropriate use-case like high density commercial. I can assure you, people complaining about the shape/size of skyscrapers in their neighbourhoods did not lead us to a SF housing crisis.
- bifrost 4y ago100% Vacancy is at an all time high right now, people are leaving my hometown because of our horrendous government.
- dionidium 4y agoI think this sentiment can be rejected by a fairly simple reductio proof. To wit: Any building taller than the tallest building currently in the area is illegitimate because it is "out of character." Therefore, the tallest existing building was illegitimate on those same grounds. Therefore, the building that was tallest before the tallest currently-existing building was also illegitimate. ... Therefore the first building ever to be constructed in San Francisco was obviously illegitimate since it would have been the most out of character with the previous millions of years of no development. Therefore all development is illegitimate. Since this is absurd, the proposition should be rejected. QED.
- scythe 4y agoThere is a formal definition of "skyscraper", which comprises a steel frame supporting curtain walls. Buildings below 100 feet never qualify in practice. Since half of San Francisco has zoning heights below 50 feet and even more onerous unit limits, it's safe to say that the housing supply could be radically expanded without any skyscrapers. For a general criterion, I think that double the local median building height would be a good line, though at least 3 stories should always be allowed anywhere with affordability issues.
- version_five 4y agoOnly works if you go full libertarian and whoever builds the building also builds their own roads and schools and other services. I hate to admit it but zoning exists for a reason.