out of place, imo. maybe if the city had long ago begun the tall district/zone near the bridge anchor, one more tall bldg would be ok. unfortunately north of market is pricey.
perhaps mission bay should have been designated as the “next 50 year fill of tall bldgs” zone.
there’s also a lot of boring tickytack residential from before the official tickytacky era (~balboa area?), but trying to eminent domain those would fail. too political. it’s also difficult to compare which potential redev area has the more sacrificable existing (or restorable) “amenities” such as semi-undergrounded creeks, etc.
1 rinc exterior is also boring looking…
[this textarea is too small, tho the preview is nice. i’d prefer the textarea be large, while the preview be short and (auto) scrolling. and perhaps the textarea could increase height, width when :active (not :hover)?]
This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
“
out of place, imo. maybe if the city had long ago begun the tall district/zone near the bridge anchor, one more tall bldg would be ok. unfortunately north of market is pricey.
perhaps mission bay should have been designated as the “next 50 year fill of tall bldgs” zone.
there’s also a lot of boring tickytack residential from before the official tickytacky era (~balboa area?), but trying to eminent domain those would fail. too political. it’s also difficult to compare which potential redev area has the more sacrificable existing (or restorable) “amenities” such as semi-undergrounded creeks, etc.
1 rinc exterior is also boring looking…
[this textarea is too small, tho the preview is nice. i’d prefer the textarea be large, while the preview be short and (auto) scrolling. and perhaps the textarea could increase height, width when :active (not :hover)?]