3 ms·
I 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 illeg
by dionidium 3y ago
I 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 3y 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.