Skyline Pictures

[uaarkson]

Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/3118364793_281bf68c6f.jpg

Flint, MI

/

I approve of this post.

The tallish building in this pic is doomed, however. Scheduled to be imploded in July.

[tdawg]

For Downtown Brooklyn, it's less about the height of the skyline and more about its density. It is, after all, the third largest business district in metro NYC after Midtown and the FiDi.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by brickell

South Florida - Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Sunny Isles, Miami Beach

Don't forget West Palm Beach. If all these clusters were connected, South Florida would have one of, if not the longest skyline in the world.

[summersm343]

Philly
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4544739144_cf70ced44c_o.jpg

[LMich]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

I approve of this post.

I'm pretty surprised you'd say that being that that is perhaps the very worst angle to photograph the albeit small Flint skyline from. lol

Anyway, another Motor City shot peeking at the New Center skyline in uptown from the middle of downtown:


downtown to new center by gsgeorge, on Flickr

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by tech12

As far as San Francisco goes, aside from downtown SF, the other sizable highrise clusters in the Bay Area are:

Downtown Oakland (about 6 or so miles from downtown SF, as the crow flies)
Downtown San Jose (about 40 miles from downtown SF, as the crow flies)

And then there are the the small highrise/midrise clusters in various suburbs like Emeryville, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Santa Clara, etc. Most of those are just a handful of midrises with maybe one or two short highrises poking out, but they do stand out from the sea of lowrises. There's nothing even close to a Mississauga-sized suburban skyline here though.

That's surprising to me. San Francisco has expensive real estate. That usually results in high rise residential to fill demand for housing at lower price points. It's part of the reason for high rise residential in Toronto and Vancouver. The other reasons: zoning, policy, and land scarcity.

Land scarcity obviously ties in with real estate prices. In Vancouver's case, it's due having the city being hemmed in all all 4 sides: water, mountains, and the US border. In Toronto's case, it's the implementation of a green belt on the perimeter of the metropolitan area. The majority of new housing now has to go on already developed land. That means intensification in selected nodes and high rise condos.

Toronto will get much much denser over the next 20 years. The population is set to spike 40%, but the geographic footprint might only expand 5%. Do you see San Francisco following a similar path?

[kool maudit]

san francisco is as expensive as it is because it is both geographically constrained and historically unwilling to allow the sort of development that toronto has seen in recent years.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's surprising to me.

It shouldn't be. California is on the whole a stunning landscape, more populous than Canada in a mere fraction of the area, and locals have not historically preferred skyscrapers. They block the views.

Toronto will get much much denser over the next 20 years. The population is set to spike 40%, but the geographic footprint might only expand 5%. Do you see San Francisco following a similar path?

Absent Toronto-style amalgamation, no.

[suburbanite]

Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by fflint

locals have not historically preferred skyscrapers. They block the views.

There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

san francisco is as expensive as it is because it is both geographically constrained and historically unwilling to allow the sort of development that toronto has seen in recent years.

But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by isaidso

There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?

a cute house just outside the city limits.... in bakersfield

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by fflint

Absent Toronto-style amalgamation, no.

How would amalgamation help?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

a cute house just outside the city limits.... in bakersfield

So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

[nei]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?

Likely publicly owned nature preserves in fairly hilly areas. So non-developable.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by isaidso

So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

Dont act so surprised. No there is no real estate in San Francisco as cheap as $250k. Its the suburbs for you. Every city or metro has areas average income earners can not afford, in SF's case its the entire city.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by isaidso

So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

not really. is there a reason it should be? san francisco is a great city to rent in, with many protections for renters and a wide range of choices.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by isaidso

But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?

No. But $250,000 could get you a nice 900sf bungalow in one of the more violent parts of Oakland. What they need to just do is say "F*** off" to the NIMBYs and allow any part of the Bay Area on a street grid to be re-developed with the same density as the outer Richmond district. Make it possible to split lots as long as the new smaller lots have direct street access. Problem solved for the next 50 years or so until it's time to build up again.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?

Bay Area greenbelts are off limits to development, into perpetuity.

Originally Posted by isaidso

There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?

An apartment. Roughly 66% of San Franciscans rent, and it's been that way for the better part of the city's history.

Originally Posted by isaidso

But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?

Detached? Only 17% of San Francisco housing units are detached.

Local teachers and retail workers most likely rent like everyone else, probably outside city limits. If they own, they own far outside the city.

Originally Posted by Beedok

How would amalgamation help?

Extra land upon which to build at high densities and the attendant increase in population? SF has been built-out since WWII, and has zoning laws allowing much higher densities than any other Bay Area city generally allows. Apply SF zoning to Oakland, for example, and the town could easily double in population.

Originally Posted by isaidso

So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?

Correct. Hell, if you have a relatively good-paying job home ownership isn't really an option, and hasn't been for decades. I find your questions oddly naive--did you really expect me to tell you a retail worker can afford to buy a detached house in the city of San Francisco for $250,000?

[whiteford]

Originally Posted by fflint

Speaking of Oakland...


CLCsPics on flickr

from what i can tell. mississauga has a skyline that is much, much, much bigger than this. this is after all a skyscraper form. with that said. it has way more impact when it comes to skyline impact. way, way, waaayyy more. i kid i kid. that does (oakland skyline),look much more urbanize, however.