
San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech - rising-sky
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/technology/salesforce-tower-san-francisco-skyline.html
======
kristopolous
San Francisco grows at a positively glacial pace compared to even mature
cities like London. Heck, even downtown Los Angeles rapidly outpaces SF in
construction. While at the same time SF arguably has more money and demand for
growth then both those places by a giant margin.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sacramento is adding more leasable square footage a
year than SF.

It's not tech that's ruined the city, it's anti-growth NIMBYs that have caused
the existing real estate prices to fly off to the Moon and critical
infrastructure to stall in the courts for years.

If the argument is about "increased traffic" then they're simply wrong.
Forcing people to drive in from El Sobrante or San Leandro because of a
refusal to build more convenient housing, that's the policy that causes more
traffic. Homes will be built somewhere.

If it's against the carbon footprint of new construction then use carbon
negative cement, have rooftop gardens, and use solar windows. We need to start
transforming our cities anyway.

And if the argument is against "greedy developers" then work on not for profit
community housing projects built on land trusts. "Build nothing" is not a
reasonable option

~~~
junkscience2017
but NIMBYs still have not had their core claim dismissed: that new residential
capacity is not being augmented with better transportation infrastructure or
even schools. most NIMBYs gave up on neighborhood parks, they seem just
impossible now. amusingly, even retail is being shunned (residential is build,
sell and move on, which is why places like Silver Creek in San Jose only have
one tiny pathetic market for 5k homes). most cities now have to force retail
components on to developers

if you live in the US, chances are you attended a public school built by a
developer in exchange for development rights, and the school was accessible by
a road also built by the developer. the park was set aside as such and not
filled with homes; instead the developer paid to put in a swingset and a
tennis court

now developers refuse to augment transportation infrastructure or build
schools (and it is illegal to decline a development due to predicted pressure
on local school), and NIMBYs want to know why. all they get in response are
downvotes on message boards or personal attacks

thousands new rental units are going up along Lawrence Expressway in Santa
Clara...but no new road capacity and no new schools, and no parks or open
space at all. what kind of a community would you like to live in? in a few
years the same urban professionals who are the core of the YIMBYs will be
freaking out about no schools or parks, because they are going to want them.

~~~
closeparen
If this is actually NIMBYs' core claim, I'm overjoyed, because it can
plausibly be worked with.

Building literal greenfield subdivisions is a little different from
infill/intensification in a city. Where one developer is building all the
homes, of course he needs to provide all the infrastructure and amenities
between them, or no one will want to live there.

Urban intensification is one site at a time. I _hope_ no single developer is
doing so much of the construction that it also makes sense to make him
responsible for schools and transit. The whole angle of YIMBYism is to reduce
landlords' pricing power through competition. So if ten different developers
are operating simultaneously, who pays for what?

If only there were some sort of institution for solving these coordination
problems. We could call it... municipal government. If only there were some
sort of mechanism for it to skim off of real estate value and use the money
for public goods. We could call it... property taxes.

Maybe "our side" isn't campaigning loudly enough for increasing public
investements in public goods, but the support is there. What you're probably
seeing pushback for is arguments like, "well, I don't see a school in this
proposal for 20 condos, so get lost" and other stuff that looks like a
rhetorical strategy for a decision you already made, rather than your actual
objection.

Road capacity is an interesting one, because people who live in dense walkable
environments close to their offices need _less_ transportation. Killing
projects in SF based on their traffic/transit impacts sends their potential
residents out to Walnut Creek. That's not better.

EDIT: I will also add that huge multi-buildings sites developed all at once
have a tendency to feel fake. There's a very real risk of uncanny valley when
a developer is trying to bootstrap a neighborhood all at once. Organic,
incremental growth is something we should celebrate and encourage.

~~~
junkscience2017
"If only there were some sort of mechanism for it to skim off of real estate
value and use the money for public goods. We could call it... property taxes."

what schools? land has to be set aside for schools. no developer makes this
sacrifice anymore. it doesn't matter if revenue is generated if there is NO
SCHOOL because no one would build one. and yes this is becoming a problem in
the Bay Area.

"Road capacity is an interesting one, because people who live in dense
walkable environments close to their offices need less transportation"

maybe like 0.1% of people in SF are candidates for walking to work, you can't
be serious

~~~
closeparen
If one developer is doing a single project so big that they can spare a
school-sized plot of land... that's concerning in itself. The model of
production that worked for cookie-cutter subdivisions isn't the only or best
one.

Public money can and should be used to acquire and develop sites. The city can
negotiate with developers to get schools incorporated into large multi-use
buildings the same way we got museums/arts centers around Yerba Buena.

We don't need developers to plop down entire fully-formed communities all at
once to get these things, and we shouldn't necessarily want them to. More,
higher-value activity to tax only increases the city's ability to build what
is needed collectively.

------
fatjokes
Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more
capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel
the writer has an axe to grind.

~~~
losteric
I'm a fan of high-density work spaces, as long as they're built _in tandem_
with high-density residential spaces _and_ high-density transportation
systems.

San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment
when compared with Manhattan's subway:

* Manhattan subway map: [https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg)

* Bay Area subway map: [https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif](https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif)

* Manhattan compared to SF: [https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg) \- the _entire_ first subway map fits in the white space of this one

Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small.
More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could
coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology
(boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where
Musk's Boring Company comes into play.

~~~
ihodes
The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF
([https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968](https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968)).
Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF
([https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968](https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968)).

~~~
jacques_chester
I've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan.

Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2,
SF's is ~18,500/km^2.

By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.

~~~
surrealize
You mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as
dense). Your SF number is people per square _mile_ , not per square km.

Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2

Manhattan ~69,400/m^2

all from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density)

~~~
jacques_chester
My figures are based on square _kilometres_. A square mile is quite different.

Edit: bonus round! I got Manhattan right but did the reverse error for SF
(quoting km^2 for miles^2).

------
capkutay
I just hate the design of salesforce tower. it's a recycled take at the
architects same building in Hong Kong and Santiago[0,1]. Not sure why you
would make such a landmark, dominant building look so unoriginal and
unremarkable.

0:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=pelli+hong+kong&source=lnms&...](https://www.google.com/search?q=pelli+hong+kong&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_2au8g7PYAhVrlVQKHWx3Bv8Q_AUIDSgE&biw=1440&bih=762)

1:
[https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=762&tbm=isch&sa=1...](https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=762&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=xDNIWqOgMqTb0gKy64_ADw&q=pelli+san+tiago&oq=pelli+san+tiago&gs_l=psy-
ab.3...1367.4672.0.4818.11.11.0.0.0.0.105.649.5j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-
ab..4.3.291...0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i67k1.0.RHRGYu7Nw-s)

~~~
booblik
I think it looks very good by itself, since you don’t have other skyscrapers
around. If they build a second one, they will have to get more creative.

Also I believe they have to conform to very strict earthquake standards.

~~~
capkutay
I'm not sure what earthquake standards has to do with the aesthetic of the
building. The main thing they need to do is drill 200 ft below surface into
bedrock.

The competing design had a similar shape/weight distribution but was much more
beautiful and unique:

[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zKV9lrNlb8M/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zKV9lrNlb8M/maxresdefault.jpg)

~~~
DrScump

      The main thing they need to do is drill 200 ft below surface into bedrock.
    

But _will_ they? The builders of the Millennium Tower sure didn't.

~~~
traek
Yes, they did. Salesforce Tower’s foundation is anchored into bedrock.

This is both easy to look up and not relevant to the conversation about
design.

------
andymcsherry
This building was designed and begun without any Salesforce involvement. Only
after did they put their name on it and lease the office space. It would have
been built with or without Salesforce.

~~~
boulos
While it's true that they're only leasing part of it (and thus got their name
added later), it was still built to serve _some_ hoped for tech company
office. So while I'm not in agreement with the article, the point is that tech
companies caused this to be built.

------
doomlaser
The number of skyscrapers being built in the US pales in comparison to other
parts of the world today. Besides Salesforce Tower, there's the upcoming Vista
Tower in Chicago, and a few in New York:
[http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/country/united-
states](http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/country/united-states)

I'd like to see more, as well as maybe a focus on more detailed craftsmanship
along with pioneering engineering. That story mentions the original Call
building in SF:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Call_bui...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Call_building.jpg)

I'd love to see a resurgence of that kind of stonework and masonry in elements
of future architecture. What has happened to all the basic brick and granite
structured ornamentation, and the elaborate tilework in modern buildings?

~~~
mc32
Maybe it's pent up demand after a lull that lasted a few decades. It's just a
feeling, but I don't recall much building happening in the 90s and 00s. Not
that there wasn't any at all, but it seems after the 70s boom, there was a
tapering off and a resurgence in the late 00s. Could be wrong though.

~~~
DrScump
The entire China Basin area exploded in developments in the wake of the
ballpark construction (Pacific Bell Park opened April 2000).

~~~
mc32
True. I'd consider those mid-rises though whereas the article is talking more
generally about high rises.

------
ladon86
Here’s a grainy photo of the Salesforce tower I took while flying out of San
Francisco on a foggy day earlier this week.

[https://i.imgur.com/qdGUhc1.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qdGUhc1.jpg)

It would be pretty fun to be on a higher floor on a day like this!

~~~
anonfunction
Wow, I look at the building everyday but this is the first I've seen it from
that vantage point. Thanks for sharing.

Found another photo that is a little closer:

[https://i.imgur.com/Px7Apnq.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Px7Apnq.jpg)

------
justaaron
eye-roll... as if the existing skyline wasn't composed by corporate temples to
greed like the transamerican building?

It's like when the people who gentrified SF yesterday complain about the
people doing it today... news-flash, it's always been an expensive pretentious
place to live and do business, and yes, it's always smelled rather rotten and
moldy as well...

------
abritinthebay
This seems needless. It’s big, yes, but it’s no different to the TransAmerica
Pyramid.

It’s more newsworthy that it’s the first major one in so long tbh

~~~
gumby
The TransAmerica pyramid and its travails are discussed in the article. It was
different.

~~~
abritinthebay
Not really. The article is utterly unconvincing there.

The writer obviously chose a conclusion and tried to make it fit. It’s a very
weak piece if you don’t come into it with the same conclusions

------
joeblau
I've been out of SF almost 2 years to the day. I went back for Christmas and
was driving around and BOY has the downtown SOMA area east of 4th street
changed. So many new apartments and condos popping up. The new train station
is going in. Sales Force 1 sticks out of the sky. It's crazy, but for some
reason I can't wait to move back.

------
teekno
A recent trip to Hong Kong really highlighted San Francisco's inability to
handle a rising population density.

As of mid-2014, HK's population was 7.24 million across the Island, Kowloon,
and the New Territories [1]. The main Island alone has a population density of
16,390/km^2 with an area of 78.59 km^2 [2]. The city is covered in high rises
and there is still a drastic housing crisis [6]. However, public
transportation was readily available, on-time, affordable, and clean. I was
able to travel across the region, to/from Macau, and to/from Shenzhen using
only these services. At no point did I need to call a Lyft/Uber/Didi/taxi.

Looking at the 9-county portion of the Bay Area, we have a population density
of 425.7/km^2 over 18,040 km^2 [3][4]. I realize it's more difficult to
support a larger region with accessible public transit, so let's focus on the
7x7 in the city: 7,170/km^2 over 121.46 km^2 [5][7]. Over 40+ km^2 with under
half of the population and we can barely keep MUNI/BART running, residents
can't afford rent increases, and employees are commuting hours to reach the
city [8]. How is the city so far behind HK with a 2016 GDP $470.5 billion
(compared to HK's 2016 GDP of $319.7 billion) [9][10]?

These articles that complain about skyscrapers changing the skyline or ruining
the historic feel of the city drive me nuts. How else will the city be able to
keep up with the growing housing demand? We're on a peninsula - we have a
fixed area in which we can build. The construction of SF tower has brought
60-ish floors of new employee space into the city without providing an
equivalent number of apartments (yes, there are condos but those are certainly
not housing all new employees). As these office high rises are constructed, we
need to be pumping investments into public transit (a new 60 floors worth of
employees will now be commuting within the city) and high rise apartments.
They don't need to be luxury apartments (ie. Jasper) but affordable options
that can house more than the standard 3 story house in Pacific Heights.

[1]
[https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/populati...](https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/population.pdf)
[2]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statis...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/feature_article/B70906FC2009XXXXB0100.pdf)
[3]
[https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties...](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties-
total.html) [4] [https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-
me...](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-metro-and-
micro-statistical-areas.html) [5] [https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-
data/data/gazetteer/20...](https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-
data/data/gazetteer/2016_Gazetteer/2016_gaz_place_06.txt) [6]
[http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-
housin...](http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-housing-
crisis-2017-6) [7]
[https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667...](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667000,00)
[8] I'm getting tired of finding citations, but there have been numerous
articles re:housing/transit/commute posted to hacker news these past few
months [9]
[https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf...](https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf/gdp_metro0917.pdf)
[10]
[https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weo...](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx)

~~~
closeparen
>As these office high rises are constructed, we need to be pumping investments
into public transit

Salesforce Tower is accompanied by the adjacent Salesforce Transit Center and
several residential skyscrapers built over the last few years. It's not
enough, but it's something. Not as egregious as a giant Apple/Google expansion
with 0 homes.

>How else will the city be able to keep up with the growing housing demand?

Why would it do that? Less than 10% of the population is exposed to market
rate rents. That segment (tech-driven transplants) also happens to be regarded
as obnoxious, privileged, and undesirable.

~~~
teekno
Tech-driven transplants strike me as a related but slightly separate issue.
Yes, they make up a large portion of the recent influx and gentrification
needs to be addressed. I don't have a good solution for this and it deserves a
lot of discussion, but ignoring the rising housing demand is certainly not the
answer. If anything, that will force out even more tenants who can't afford
tech-salary rents, right?

The Bay area is at the heart of the Third Industrial revolution and hopefully
will continue to be a driving force in the Fourth. Not evolving city
infrastructure and housing to match this strikes me as Luddism.

~~~
closeparen
Funny you should mention the industrial revolution, because resisting tech-
industry-driven growth is done under the banner of progressivism, with the
same pride and zeal of old-timey Peogressives fighting for better labor
conditions in factories.

~~~
teekno
I don't follow. Progressivism advocates for the general improvement of
society. This applies to both technological advances and social reform. Why
not modernize social structure, infrastructure, and technology simultaneously?
That should at least to the goal - hindering one will likely hinder the
others.

~~~
closeparen
Stopping money from getting what it wants (which in this case is housing,
infrastructure, and attendant changes in the character of the region) seems to
be enough of a social reform to be satisfying on its own, regardless of the
consequences.

------
sytelus
SalesForce Tower looks like one hack of a ugly building. Does anyone else feel
buildings in US are becoming exceedingly bland and uncreative in architecture?
Just look at skyscrapers in places like Singapore, Dubai or Shanghai and you
would be amazed at diversity and imaginativeness of people who built them.

~~~
azinman2
Ironically largely from western architects.

------
surrealize
What is up with the NYT being negative about the tech sector? Especially on
the west coast. Can you imagine the headline:

"Manhattan’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Finance"

------
boulos
> The skyscraper came late to this city, a shipping and manufacturing hub for
> much of its existence.

Huh? The Pac Bell building (which Yelp is now in) is a classic 1920s
skyscraper [1]. San Francisco never ended up with as many tall buildings as
say NYC, but that's also partly a function of city size.

NYC had 5.6M people in 1920 [2], while San Francisco was about 500,000 [3].
Even if you compare just to Manhattan to avoid metropolitan area comparisons,
we're talking about 2.5M almost (so 5x).

If anything, it would be apt to say that skyscrapers never caught on in San
Francisco like they did in Manhattan. New York currently has ~10x as many
skyscrapers (buildings taller than 150m) than San Francisco [4 and 5]. The
article even goes on to point out that early newspaper folks competed over
tall buildings:

> San Francisco has always been like this. There were so few skyscrapers in
> the city’s first century that the ones that were built tell a tale of
> rampant egos and unrestrained power. At the end of the 19th century, the
> city’s newspapers had hubris and wealth to rival today’s internet companies.
> In 1890, the owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, M. H. de Young, erected a
> 10-story building worthy of his publication. It was the tallest building on
> the West Coast.

The Bay Area is just spread out compared to NYC. It developed much later and
wasn't a big city before automobiles were popular (and didn't have a real
metro until 1980!). With Silicon Valley being in the peninsula, and tech only
developing somewhat recently, San Francisco simply wasn't that big of a
commercial city (in comparison to New York) to dictate large skyscrapers.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_New_Montgomery](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_New_Montgomery)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_Y...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_York_City)

[3]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco)

[4]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City)

[5]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Francisco)

