Posted Jun 25, 2017, 9:10 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Who "designs" skylines?
|
The SF Planning Dept. for one.
Quote:
POLICY 1.3
Recognize that buildings, when seen together, produce a total effect that characterizes the city and its districts.
Buildings, which collectively contribute to the characteristic pattern of the city, are the greatest variable because they are most easily altered by man. Therefore, the relationships of building forms to one another and to other elements of the city pattern should be moderated so that the effects will be complementary and harmonious.
The general pattern of buildings should emphasize the topographic form of the city and the importance of centers of activity. It should also help to define street areas and other public open spaces. Individual buildings and other structures should stand out prominently in the city pattern only in exceptional circumstances, where they signify the presence of important community facilities and occupy visual focal points that benefit from buildings and structures of such design . . . .
The fitting in of new development is, in a broad sense, a matter of scale. It requires a careful assessment of each building site in terms of the size and texture of its surroundings, and a very conscious effort to achieve balance and compatibility in the design of the new building. Good scale depends upon a height that is consistent with the total pattern of the land and of the skyline, a bulk that is not overwhelming, and an overall appearance that is complementary to the building forms and other elements of the city. Scale is relative, therefore, since the height, bulk and appearance of past development differ among the districts of the city.
People in San Francisco are accustomed to a skyline and streetscape of buildings that harmonize in color, shape and details. Much effort has been made in the past to relate each new building to its neighbors at both upper and lower levels, and to avoid jarring contrasts that would upset the city pattern. Special care has been accorded the edges of distinct districts, where transitions in scale are especially important . . . .
Tall buildings are a necessary and expressive form for much of the city's office, apartment, hotel and institutional development. These buildings, as soaring towers in a white city, connote the power and prosperity of man's modern achievements. They make economical use of land, offer fine views to their occupants, and can permit efficient deployment of public services . . . .
Exceptional height can have either positive or negative effects upon the city pattern and the nearby environment. A building that is well designed in itself will help to reinforce the city's form if it is well placed, but the same building at the wrong location can be utterly disruptive.
If properly placed, tall buildings can enhance the topographic form and existing skyline of the city. They can orient the traveler by helping to clarify his route and identify his destination. Building height can define districts and centers of activity. These advantages can be achieved without blocking or reduction of views from private properties, public areas or major roadways, if a proper plan for building height is followed. Such a plan must weigh all the advantages and disadvantages of height at each location in the city, and must take into account appropriate established patterns of building height and scale, seeking for the most part to follow and reinforce those patterns. Such a plan must also be applied with recognition of the functional and economic needs for space in major centers for offices, high density apartments, hotels and institutions providing public services . . . .
|
For much more on the subject (see especially "Fundamental Principles of major New Development"): http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/I5_Urban_Design.htm
For further evidence of how the city planners consider the skyline, there's this from 2008 when the TransBay terminal and district was under consideration:
Quote:
A signature tower has long been imagined for the Transbay Terminal. In 2006, (former Planning Director Dean) Macris and other officials floated the idea of a transit tower higher than the 853-foot Transamerica building, San Francisco's tallest structure.
Among their arguments: the supposed aesthetic benefits of accenting a skyline where towers built since 1985 have formed a sort of plateau in the air.
"The flattening-out of the skyline undermines the topography of the city" with its natural hills, said John Rahaim, who replaced Macris as city planning director in January. As for making the skyline's new "peak" be part of a transit center, "there is something to be said for this important public project to be the focal point," he said . . . .
|
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/T...ne-3285569.php
How right they were and how much improvement there has been! Ultimately, the planners specifically advocated a a 3-humped skyline (as seen from the Bay) with the central, tallest hump being the Salesforce Tower and the cluster of very tall buildings around it (181 Fremont, Oceanwide Center, at least one other on Howard St), the left hump being the Rincon Hill cluster and the right hump being the traditional Financial District includng the TransAmerica and Bank of America towers.
__________________
Rusiya delenda est
Last edited by Pedestrian; Jun 25, 2017 at 9:32 PM.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
