clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Made in the Shade of the Transbay Plan

New, 18 comments

Will increasing the density of San Francisco really help the environment? Meh, maybe — but it helps make a nice argument for building higher. Is the Transbay Terminal Tower a "blandly derivative dildo"? Sure, that one's hilariously arguable. But the real problem here— the big, serious issue that will effect the quality of life for the entire metropolitan area is ... the shadows cast by these still-hypothetical buildings. Shadows, really? For the most part, downtown San Francisco (Fidi, SoMa, what have you) is still a place where people work, not where people live. So let's be honest, quality of life is never really going to be perfect. It seems like popular opinion is trending towards height, but—gasp!—if SoMa towers climb up to 1000 feet, they may cast shadows over Justin Herman Plaza during part of the day (part of the day!) and possibly (possibly!) Portsmouth Square! "But," you ask, "what about 1984's Proposition K, which states that new buildings cannot cast shadows onto public parks?" Ignore that, we say, because the city can — and will at their own discretion. And hey — does JHP really count as a park anyway? Plus, as the world caves beneath the weight of global warming, we'll all be begging for more shadows, anyway.
· Growing up [SF Bay Guardian]
· Opinion Watch: Transbay Terminal Plan [Curbed SF]