Just stumbled on this interesting site

San Francisco CITYSCAPE -- Bay Area Urban Design:

Reactions to the Tranbay Terminal redevelopment plan released in August have been surprisingly positive --- but none more so than this, from the infamous height foe Sue Hestor:

"Personally, I don't have a problem with a very tall tower at the Transbay Terminal." Yes, those were pigs you just saw flying over a frozen hell. But almost as surprising is the possible height of the tower Hestor's talking about --- over 800 feet, higher than the Bank of America Building and nearly as tall as the Transamerica Pyramid. The plan doesn't play up the possibility; there's the elevation at right, a passing mention, then several renderings like the one here with a 550-foot (the existing height limit) tower, all buried in a much larger plan. But planners do emphasize that the tower should be a "signature" skyscraper, as this is a symbolic location --- the first thing travelers will see when emerging from the new terminal at First and Mission streets --- the new SOMA skyline needs its own peak, and the larger skyline could use a bit of balance --- BofA and Transamerica are off on its far edge. Why so little initial opposition?

Signature skyscraper? skyline needs some balance?...hmmm....Seems like planners are falling for this precious-object archibabble stuff, too.

UPDATE: Brian, you've actually hit on my point quite nicely and I thank you for forcing me to articulate it better.

Requirements for "pedestrian amenities" is fairly easy to objectify, to quantify. etc. and involves very predictable matters of human behavior and frankly very, very few Rules...Three, in fact.

The issue of "balance" of the skyline is an aesthetic issue which is far more subjective and hard to codify. For example, "balance" from what physical viewpoint? What is "balance", anyay? Why not an assymetrical skyline? Assymetry can be marvelous, which seems to contradict the notion of "balance."

As you know, one of the concerns of City Comforts is not only the quality of the built environment but the quality of the social structure needed to create fine quality. That's why I have such sympathy (even though some of the extreme stuff both amuses and galls me) for Samizdata and of course especially for White Rose.

I think that it essential, critical, that we construct our land use systems with the least intrusive means in mind and that we discard some issues --- desirable as they might in theory be --- simply because we have no good means to administer them.

Practicality must be the outer limits of desire.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

I'm not sure I agree with you here, David.

Its not merely babble to believe that a building at a key location (visually
hitting you right in the eyes as you exit the Bay Bridge)shouldn't be a little more than just another pale stucco/glass box. Not every abstract idea is instantly suspect.

Since we are going to seeing a huge amount of development in the area, worrying
about overall skylines, and even "balance" is not inappropriate. And, the local
debate (see John King's columns in the Chronicle) also recognizes the need
to provide for the pedestrian scale and amenities that you yourself recognize
as important.

I've met the site's owner, and it is more a labor of love for him than a real
"planners'" site.