I actually think you guys at SFBG hate tall buildings because they make you feel small and unimportant.

But the only way to preserve the precious open spaces that still exist in the Bay Area's outlying areas is to build up, not out. That means tall buildings.

The so-called progressives like the one who wrote this article fail to understand that the decades-long reluctance to build up in San Francisco is contributing to regional urban sprawl; decimation of open spaces, increase in green house gases, etc. Another parochial and angsty rant from the height haters at SFBG.

What the whiney S.F. nostalgists (who almost never are originally from S.F.) conveniently ignore is that the proposed Transbay Tower will be built downtown in what is currently a desolate, dirty, and unsafe area. Moreover, it is being built just blocks away from the bustling highrise core where there are already hundreds of tall buildings.

The anti-high rise folks like to engage in misleading arguments which make it appear that new towers are going to be built among quaint Victorians when the fact is that these very tall buildings are being proposed for the downtown area either in the midst of other high rises or on parking lots or the site of rundown buildings immediately adjacent to the highrise core.

There is no view to destroy there and no one is being run out of their home to build the new towers. The only thing that will change is the view of the downtown skyline as one drives or flys into San Francisco. Considering that the downtown skyline consists mostly of huge dull-colored boxes built in the 1960's through the early 1980's, I think a striking pinnacle tower would vastly improve the skyline.

Finally, a solid row of 4-story buildings (which one can find in various parts of S.F.) can just as easily create a shadowed wind-tunnel as can a row of poorly planned highrises. A well-planned highrise district can actually have more light, more air, and much more inviting streetscrape than a poorly planned low-rise district. Once you start planning a new building in an existing highrise district or on empty or underdeveloped land immediately adjacent to a highrise district, the height of the new building matters very little. The spacing, rotation of the building, quality of the materials used, and interface with the street scrape are what determines how successful the building turns out.

And the "god-awful Rincon Tower" that the author resents so much was actually approved by none other than SFBG's patron saint Chris Daly, after the developer bought him off.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/08/BAGA8E4JR61.DTL

I'm sure the BofA building, as well as the Transamerica Pyramid, received similar opposition. Can you imagine and SF skyline without them?
While I don't want the City to become the next Manhatten, I am not opposed to a landmark skyscraper in the new downtown core of SoMa. If it raises money for a much needed regional transit center, all the better.

It's not the height alone that bothers me (although I don't think San Francisco needs a 1,200-foot tower). It's the notion that we are allowing this to happen not because there's any real need for another big commercial office tower but because we're desperate for a way to pay for infrastructure.

Remember: The Transbay Terminal building most likely won't be housing (which is what you talk about when you talk about the need for density). And nearly all of the highrise housing that's being built is so high-end that it's doing nothing for the city's real housing problems.

Yes, I can absolutely imagine the skyline without the dark, imposing and unpleasant B of A Building. Can't you?

When I was five years old, I watched the BofA building go up. And even at that young age, I found it to be compelling, because it loomed over the city, dark and enigmatic, like the monolith in Stanley Kubrick's '2001: Space Odyssey'.

Like any successful architecture, the BofA building's design evokes a clear character. And it's character accomplishes exactly what it was meant for, which is to make an unambiguous statement about corporate power.

If I were paranoid, I might find that aspect of the BofA building, or any other skyscraper, to be intimidating.

By comparison, the Rincon Hill tower has been a profound disappointment because it is so very bland. Because of its height and location, it should have been an emblem, a statement about what makes San Francisco special. But instead, it merely calls attention to itself, without actually having anything to say.

Architecture isn't meant only to surround us with pretty furniture. Rather, it should say something to us about ourselves and our world. I'm hoping the developers of the Transbay Tower will appreciate that.

I don't find the B of A building intimidating, but I find it unattractive and unappealing as part of an urban space. The lame attempt to evoke Bay windows, the blocky shape, the dark (but uninteresting)colors ... it does nothing for me.

tim: a dense office building is like a lot of not dense office buildings. how is that only residential? what would you rather have there? my guess would not be parkiong lots? come on. if you don't like civilization then go live in the wilderness. everybody has to have something to bitch about. perhaps if we get this moving then it will put some pressure on getting hsr done? how many strangers have you talked to today about that project? construct.

dear sfbg, if you don't like high-rises and civilization, then please change your banner at the top of the website.

come on. please. how can you POSSIBLY be against a high rise? because of your pretty view? you have got to be kidding me. please remove this article from existence.

Folks: It's not just, or even primarily, about aestetics, and anyone who thinks that opposition to highrises in the 1980s and 1990s was primarily about views and urban beauty is missing the point. Please educate yourselves; you can start here:

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1868&volume_id=254&issue_id=257&volume_num=40&issue_num=03&l=1

And today, when much of the highrise construction is housing, it's about a larger issue: Who are we building housing for, and why? Do we need more million-dollar condos?

Read this:

http://www.sfbg.com/40/03/news_condo_attack.html

The battle over highrises has never been entirely (or even primarily) about aesthetics or views. Educate yourself a bit on local history; you can start here:

Whoops, you can start here

Tim, I read your article back when it came out and I very much enjoyed it. However you pose a false choice with the notion that cities are either a place for commerce and industry or a place for romantic pursuits. The fact is, you can't have either one without the other.

Cities' primary motivation remains economic. It would be nice to build cities on the romantic notions that you've offered. However, it would be impossible to support them solely on those notions.

And yet San Francisco is indeed a place where "people meet each other and read and write and sing and dance and make art and fall in love". But to facilitate that life, San Francisco must spend an annual budget in excess of $5 billion. And one good way to generate that kind of money is through the judicious development of our overpriced real estate.

As always, the real issue underlying the debate about downtown development is power and who wields it. It's not about aesthetics, fiscal policy, or even social ideas. Matt Gonzalez once said to me that politically San Franciscans are actually all pretty much the same. The real debate among San Franciscans isn't over politics but rather who will be made to finance our visions of a perfect world. And that is a debate, again, about power.

I'm part of the political camp that asserts that everyone should contribute to the common good and that no one, be they billionaires or vagrants, should get a free ride. But as your article asserts, you seem to think that we should exact greater contributions from the wealthiest among us, simply because they are wealthy. Unfortunately, financing our lofty visions on the backs of any single group is not a sustainable model for growth.

Thanks, Jeff. Actually, building lofty visions by demanding that the wealthiest pay their fair share (and the fair share for a billionaire is more, much more, than for a typical working stiff) has a long and successful tradition in this country. In the boom years of the 1950s and 1960s, when things like the interstate highway system and the University of California were built, people with high incomes paid marginal taxes of up to 80 percent.

It worked. Also kept the gap between the rich and the poor down a bit.

Two things, I guess:
1) What piece of our city are we "hocking"?

2)I enjoyed and continue to enjoy reading your Uncle Georgie-esque characterization of wealth redistribution. Of course "the rich" should pay for it... all of it. And they should give everyone else the profit. I agree.

We are hocking the sky, the air, the public space that is the vision of San Francisco we all experience.

I'm not saying the rich should pay for it all, just that they should pay a fair share -- and after all these years of tax cuts, rich people and big businesses are paying FAR less than their fair share.

I also think that public infrastructure, like bus and train stations, should be paid for and controlled by the public. I know that's old fashioned, but it's way better policy than what we have now.

I don't agree that we are hocking the sky, the air, the public space that is the vision of San Francisco we all experience. I guess its a matter of opinion. People must decide if they agree with me or you and then weigh that decision against other options for funding like tax increases.

But I do agree that the rich should have increased taxes and pay their fair share which is currently far from fair. I don't agree the the public alone should pay for infrastructure.

So the decision is to...hock the sky and get free money, don't hock the sky and get free money, or don't hock the sky and pay for it. A matter of opinion.

I completely agree with Tim Redmond. This tower and the other extremely tall towers proposed for south of Market would be hideous additions to the City's skyline. Something in the 600-ft. range would be okay, but 1,200 feet is WAY out of scale, and would permanently mar this scenic City. The City should enact a 700-ft. maximum height limit. Two 600-ft. towers would be better than one 1,200 one and would achieve the same floor area. Is there any organized opposition to these horrible towers?

Tim, after reading your other article and "educating myself" (by the way, how did you educate yourself), the only thing I've learned is your theory that housing should be limited, and that towers should be kept down has been in sway for at least the past 20 years in San Francisco, since the BofA tower went up. Since then, the middle class has been squeezed out of the city and the rich have taken over. Young people and artists, musicians, teachers, the people who made San Francisco what it is, can't live in the city anymore.

So your way of doing things didn't work.

Clearly, we need to try new ideas. Getting a fair market value for an attractive transit-oriented tower downtown doesn't seem to be a disaster, and creating ANY new housing (including the ~100 low-income units in Rincon Hill) is better than your none.