[SFView]

San Francisco has a long and deep history of its people expressing concern for the future of their beloved city. This history continues, and will continue, just as it has for more than one and a half century of its existence. It is the nature of San Francisco. John King expresses concern that the new tallest towers could be too excessively tall and extravagant, in contrast to what is already there. San Francisco already has features and qualities that are unique and world renown, and does not need more.

This may seem a plausible view, but I still think San Francisco should not fall behind the rest of the world in architecture. Why shouldn't San Francisco be even more beautiful and unique with new very tall, glitzy, but tasteful towers? Let us not forget the rallies against the design and construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Transamerica Pyramid before they were built. Their eventual outcomes need no explanation here.

Be thankful that John King is not a member of any decision making organization involved with Transbay. Be thankful he may have very little, if any influence on the outcome of this, or any other large building project anywhere. The only danger is King’s potential influence on public opinion, but is that really a danger? We may also not have much influence either, but if the decision makers are doing their homework, they should know the views of John King and others with different views as well. Our views are available for anyone to read here, just as easily as John King's.