Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love the water view, but I dont think its as good as from the south, the hills hide much of the skyline.
Actually cant find shot Im looking for, but you miss all this from the vantage point you posted, although its a great shot...
SF has some insane density....I'd have to guess pop. densities probably approach 40k-50k on average near the financial district. I'm sure there are some 100k+ psm census tracts. Probably the most impressive behind Manhattan in the U.S. Can't wait to visit this winter!
SF has some insane density....I'd have to guess pop. densities probably approach 40k-50k on average near the financial district. I'm sure there are some 100k+ psm census tracts. Probably the most impressive behind Manhattan in the U.S. Can't wait to visit this winter!
I don't have the solid numbers, but I do know that SF has more tracts of 100k + than any other city in America besides NYC. I know that NYC tops off at 200k and SF tops off at 160K, which is still highly impressive.
For an excellent view of San Francisco's skyline, well at least most of it, check out the thumbnail picture I posted of the city on page 10.
SF has some insane density....I'd have to guess pop. densities probably approach 40k-50k on average near the financial district. I'm sure there are some 100k+ psm census tracts. Probably the most impressive behind Manhattan in the U.S. Can't wait to visit this winter!
It does get insanely high, of course nothing is close to NYC, but SF is next in line and just a smaller scale. The structural density is always impressive, just zoom into that last picture I posted....
I think Seattle's skyline generally photographs better because it's very easy to capture the majority of the skyline, the Space Needle, the water, and Mt. Rainier all in one photograph. San Francisco's skyline is harder to capture, it's just not as neatly organized as Seattle's skyline. That being said, San Francisco's skyline is so much more impressive in person. They may seem comparable in photograph, but in person, it's very apparent that they're not on the same level. I actually find Seattle's skyline to be a bit underwhelming in person.
I think Seattle's skyline generally photographs better because it's very easy to capture the majority of the skyline, the Space Needle, the water, and Mt. Rainier all in one photograph. San Francisco's skyline is harder to capture, it's just not as neatly organized as Seattle's skyline. That being said, San Francisco's skyline is so much more impressive in person. They may seem comparable in photograph, but in person, it's very apparent that they're not on the same level. I actually find Seattle's skyline to be a bit underwhelming in person.
It is! And that is what people don't realize. I was in Seattle last year. In pictures the skyline looks huge and impressive. In person, it looks fairly unimpressive. However, I'd still give it the second spot after SF for best west coast skyline. The Space Needle was actually rather pathetic and can hardly be considered part of Seattle's skyline. I expected it to be so much taller and closer to the actual cbd. Once you drive into SF from the Bay Bridge or drive Northbound into downtown from the 280, the difference becomes very evident.
I rode by there today. Excavation at the site looks to be pretty much done. It's connected to the underground rail terminal, so it's a massive excavation that covers four large blocks. Occupancy is set for early 2017, I believe.
On a related note--two vantage points put San Francisco's skyline in another tier from West Coast cities: from the north, either in the water or from the Marin Headlands, and from the Bay Bridge, driving in. Amazing sights.
When I look at 50 First, I see a beautiful post-modern building. At 915 feet, it'll be monstrous in San Francisco's skyline and will pave the way for San Francisco's skyline of the 21st century.
Transbay, compared to 50 First, sucks. Wish 50 First had the supertall height and got started on already. That'd be cool.
When I look at 50 First, I see a beautiful post-modern building. At 915 feet, it'll be monstrous in San Francisco's skyline and will pave the way for San Francisco's skyline of the 21st century.
Transbay, compared to 50 First, sucks. Wish 50 First had the supertall height and got started on already. That'd be cool.
Have to agree with that. I actually love the beauty of the hills, Bridges, and water in the San Francisco Skyline. Has amazing density too, no doubt. But ive always found their tallest buildings to be a bit boring and unimpressive. The City the size of San Francisco should have had taller skyscrapers along time ago. Gonna be fun to see how the Skyline changes in the next 20 years. I hope seattle can get atleast 3 more buildings 900+ feet. The skyline needs some new blood flowing in it. The Downtown is rapidly expanding and it's becoming much more dense and vibrant, but I still think it needs just a bit more height.
Have to agree with that. I actually love the beauty of the hills, Bridges, and water in the San Francisco Skyline. Has amazing density too, no doubt. But ive always found their tallest buildings to be a bit boring and unimpressive. The City the size of San Francisco should have had taller skyscrapers along time ago. Gonna be fun to see how the Skyline changes in the next 20 years. I hope seattle can get atleast 3 more buildings 900+ feet. The skyline needs some new blood flowing in it. The Downtown is rapidly expanding and it's becoming much more dense and vibrant, but I still think it needs just a bit more height.
Seattle has more highrise/skyscraper construction going on in the city than like 90% of the American cities.
You wont have to wait too long. Market is supply, then demand, then back to supply, then back to demand. Unless you want to Miami it, build it all first, let them occupy while you build more (keeps standard values stagnant or lower than expected) and keep at it. However, that's the bubble technique. It's not worthwhile in the long run economically but in the short term, that skyline will have changed well within 10 years time.
If I were you, the Seattle formula is more organized. Build, fill it up, then build again, then fill it, then repeat. Before you know it, the market will demand more and Seattle will get more. It'll get taller and larger eventually.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
