SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Found City Photos (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Skyline Pictures (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=201694)

uaarkson May 11, 2013 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69 (Post 6122560)

I approve of this post. :)

The tallish building in this pic is doomed, however. Scheduled to be imploded in July.

tdawg May 12, 2013 1:26 PM

For Downtown Brooklyn, it's less about the height of the skyline and more about its density. It is, after all, the third largest business district in metro NYC after Midtown and the FiDi.

jd3189 May 12, 2013 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickell (Post 6123010)
South Florida - Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Sunny Isles, Miami Beach

Don't forget West Palm Beach. If all these clusters were connected, South Florida would have one of, if not the longest skyline in the world.

summersm343 May 12, 2013 11:26 PM

Philly
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/...70ced44c_o.jpg

LMich May 13, 2013 8:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson (Post 6124688)
I approve of this post. :)

I'm pretty surprised you'd say that being that that is perhaps the very worst angle to photograph the albeit small Flint skyline from. lol

Anyway, another Motor City shot peeking at the New Center skyline in uptown from the middle of downtown:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3224/2...abbd9e0f_b.jpg
downtown to new center by gsgeorge, on Flickr

isaidso May 15, 2013 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 6124649)
As far as San Francisco goes, aside from downtown SF, the other sizable highrise clusters in the Bay Area are:

Downtown Oakland (about 6 or so miles from downtown SF, as the crow flies)
Downtown San Jose (about 40 miles from downtown SF, as the crow flies)

And then there are the the small highrise/midrise clusters in various suburbs like Emeryville, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Santa Clara, etc. Most of those are just a handful of midrises with maybe one or two short highrises poking out, but they do stand out from the sea of lowrises. There's nothing even close to a Mississauga-sized suburban skyline here though.

That's surprising to me. San Francisco has expensive real estate. That usually results in high rise residential to fill demand for housing at lower price points. It's part of the reason for high rise residential in Toronto and Vancouver. The other reasons: zoning, policy, and land scarcity.

Land scarcity obviously ties in with real estate prices. In Vancouver's case, it's due having the city being hemmed in all all 4 sides: water, mountains, and the US border. In Toronto's case, it's the implementation of a green belt on the perimeter of the metropolitan area. The majority of new housing now has to go on already developed land. That means intensification in selected nodes and high rise condos.

Toronto will get much much denser over the next 20 years. The population is set to spike 40%, but the geographic footprint might only expand 5%. Do you see San Francisco following a similar path?

kool maudit May 15, 2013 9:15 AM

san francisco is as expensive as it is because it is both geographically constrained and historically unwilling to allow the sort of development that toronto has seen in recent years.

fflint May 15, 2013 9:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6128802)
That's surprising to me.

It shouldn't be. California is on the whole a stunning landscape, more populous than Canada in a mere fraction of the area, and locals have not historically preferred skyscrapers. They block the views.
Quote:

Toronto will get much much denser over the next 20 years. The population is set to spike 40%, but the geographic footprint might only expand 5%. Do you see San Francisco following a similar path?
Absent Toronto-style amalgamation, no.

suburbanite May 15, 2013 2:52 PM

Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?

isaidso May 15, 2013 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6128827)
locals have not historically preferred skyscrapers. They block the views.

There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?

isaidso May 15, 2013 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool maudit (Post 6128817)
san francisco is as expensive as it is because it is both geographically constrained and historically unwilling to allow the sort of development that toronto has seen in recent years.

But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?

LosAngelesSportsFan May 15, 2013 4:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129158)
There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?

a cute house just outside the city limits.... in bakersfield

Beedok May 15, 2013 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6128827)
Absent Toronto-style amalgamation, no.

How would amalgamation help?:???:

isaidso May 15, 2013 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 6129186)
a cute house just outside the city limits.... in bakersfield

So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

nei May 15, 2013 6:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite (Post 6129049)
Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?

Likely publicly owned nature preserves in fairly hilly areas. So non-developable.

SLO May 15, 2013 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129226)
So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?


Dont act so surprised. No there is no real estate in San Francisco as cheap as $250k. Its the suburbs for you. Every city or metro has areas average income earners can not afford, in SF's case its the entire city.

mthd May 15, 2013 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129226)
So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

not really. is there a reason it should be? san francisco is a great city to rent in, with many protections for renters and a wide range of choices.

Reverberation May 15, 2013 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129165)
But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?

No. But $250,000 could get you a nice 900sf bungalow in one of the more violent parts of Oakland. What they need to just do is say "F*** off" to the NIMBYs and allow any part of the Bay Area on a street grid to be re-developed with the same density as the outer Richmond district. Make it possible to split lots as long as the new smaller lots have direct street access. Problem solved for the next 50 years or so until it's time to build up again.

fflint May 15, 2013 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite (Post 6129049)
Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?

Bay Area greenbelts are off limits to development, into perpetuity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129158)
There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?

An apartment. Roughly 66% of San Franciscans rent, and it's been that way for the better part of the city's history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129165)
But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?

Detached? Only 17% of San Francisco housing units are detached.

Local teachers and retail workers most likely rent like everyone else, probably outside city limits. If they own, they own far outside the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok (Post 6129219)
How would amalgamation help?:???:

Extra land upon which to build at high densities and the attendant increase in population? SF has been built-out since WWII, and has zoning laws allowing much higher densities than any other Bay Area city generally allows. Apply SF zoning to Oakland, for example, and the town could easily double in population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 6129226)
So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

Correct. Hell, if you have a relatively good-paying job home ownership isn't really an option, and hasn't been for decades. I find your questions oddly naive--did you really expect me to tell you a retail worker can afford to buy a detached house in the city of San Francisco for $250,000?

whiteford May 15, 2013 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6122481)

from what i can tell. mississauga has a skyline that is much, much, much bigger than this. this is after all a skyscraper form. with that said. it has way more impact when it comes to skyline impact. way, way, waaayyy more.:runaway: i kid i kid. that does (oakland skyline),look much more urbanize, however.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.