Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on San Francisco Gets Skyline-Happy

1

While the height of a building may be of some interest, what happens within 30 feet of the ground is far, far more significant to the texture of daily life.

Sounds simple and it is.

Posted by David Sucher | December 22, 2006 9:29 AM
2

Just what a city that averages over 700 earthquakes per year* needs, a "cluster of thin towers", probably all faced with glass. There is a 67 percent chance for at least one earthquake of magnitude 7 or larger in the San Francisco Bay Area between 1990 and 2020*. Even if they're taking this into account in the construction budget, why pay the extra cost?

(*USGS)

Posted by Lou Hosman | December 22, 2006 10:02 AM
3

I don't get those odds. There was no earthquake of that magnitude for 83 years after the 1906 quake, but there's supposed to be another 7 or greater quake within the next 14?

Posted by keshmeshi | December 22, 2006 10:41 AM
4

@Keshmeshi: Because they're just odds. 67% chance isn't 100% certain. I'm sure they look at more than just the last 2 quakes.

@David Sucher: very true. Although with more, thinner towers, I'd think it's very promising to have some open space (versus one ginormous building taking up the whole block).

Posted by him | December 22, 2006 11:05 AM
5

I just wanted to add that Santiago Calavatra is working on a potential project to build a 2,000-foot-tall skyscraper in Chicago by 2011 -- making it the nation's new largest building.

The always wonderful Blair Kamin wrote about it today.

Posted by horatiosanzserif | December 22, 2006 11:28 AM
6

David Sucher wasn't talking about "open space". Open space is dead space. He was talking about how the building addresses the street: is there retail, how much, what kind of street furniture will there be, is there street parking, are there awnings, is there a second or even third floor that's engaged to the street and not the elevator bank inside, what kind of signs are there? With the proper kind of amenities, even a super-tall building can be a neighborhood asset (see the Empire State sometime); but very few modern architects pay this aspect of skyscraper design more than a cursory notice.

Posted by Fnarf | December 22, 2006 11:31 AM
7

Fnarf is spot on. Too many of the taller buildings these days have really hideous lower levels (for example, some of the new condo towers going up that have multiple floors of parking above the lobby).

Make the skyscraper fit the streetscape and you notice the height much less. However, if the skyscraper has huge, open features at ground level, it does feel like a Tall Building.

Posted by Andrew Hitchcock | December 22, 2006 12:00 PM
8

I'm not an expert on retrofitting standards from city to city, but I'm sure the planned buildings will be ultra-retrofitted. The first thought in anyone's head about more skyscrapers going up in SF would be the earthquake issue.. or at least, one would hope.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 22, 2006 1:09 PM
9

When building from scratch, its pretty easy to ensure earthquake resistance. A tuned mass damper near the top slides back and forth to counteract the shaking the building takes. The tallest building in Vancouver has one that uses giant water tanks designed to slosh in opposition to seismic waves.

Posted by Some Jerk | December 22, 2006 1:27 PM
10

I disagree with some of your points, Fnarf. I understand interaction is important (eg, retail, parking, bike racks). But open space isn't wasted space (to a point, of course). Empire State = pretty to look at, but not especially pedestrian-friendly at ground level, and takes up an entire block. Building to the property lines means you can't take the whole ground area in. And 2nd/3rd floor businesses engaged to the street are often rarely-frequented businesses.

Posted by him | December 22, 2006 1:50 PM
11

Horatiosanzseri, you totally beat me to it--Yay for the Fordham--er, I mean Chicago Spire! Here's more pictures for them what's interested:

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/ShowBuilding/357.php

I love New York and I don't miss Chicago winters, but I miss Chicago. Also, Seattle is the suck. Just FYI.

Posted by Boomer | December 22, 2006 2:27 PM
12

The Empire State isn't pedestrian friendly? Have you ever been there? It's completely swarming with pedestrians. See, that's how you can tell: lots and lots of peds = pedestrian friendly. If your pedestrian-friendly development doesn't actually have any peds present, it's NOT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. Open space = litter, drug dealers, windswept plazas. Bad for cities.

I notice that the worst plaza in the United States, Government Center in Boston (surrounding Boston City Hall, the worst building in the United States) is for sale. They want to build some city back on it, the way it used to be before they bulldozed over 1,000 buildings, 60-odd blocks (an entire neighborhood) to make it.

Posted by Fnarf | December 22, 2006 2:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).