I'm excited to hear we're getting buildings with smaller footprints even without the single stair law. I always liked the diversity of buildings north of Market compared to the block-sized towers in SOMA and I think the lot size is why.
I wonder what Jane Jacobs would have thought. She’s a proponent of high density on small lots, the argument being that since each building or development decays at a roughly uniform rate, having lots of separately developed lots developed at different timescales on an urban block means that the block is constantly regenerating rather than undergoing cycles of deterioration and urban renewal all together.
A reminder that sfyimby.com, the real estate blog, is not at all affiliated with sfyimby.org, the grassroots political organization (I am a volunteer in).
Interesting post. Amsterdam also has a lot of very skinny buildings which to me look aesthetically very pleasing from the outside. How are these skinny buildings on the inside? Hopefully it doesn't make the house feel like a narrow long corridor?
One of the cardinal rules of architecture criticism is to withhold judgement until you can see the real thing. Renderings can be very misleading. That said, I think you're right that some of these buildings aren't going to be the most beautiful. Though I do like what I see with 5172 Mission Street. And I think 777 Sutter has the potential to be interesting with the belt and medallion configuration they seem to be going for.
I'm excited to hear we're getting buildings with smaller footprints even without the single stair law. I always liked the diversity of buildings north of Market compared to the block-sized towers in SOMA and I think the lot size is why.
I wonder what Jane Jacobs would have thought. She’s a proponent of high density on small lots, the argument being that since each building or development decays at a roughly uniform rate, having lots of separately developed lots developed at different timescales on an urban block means that the block is constantly regenerating rather than undergoing cycles of deterioration and urban renewal all together.
Yes, exactly! I think she would be supportive of this trend. At least compared to wider, multi-lot redevelopments.
A reminder that sfyimby.com, the real estate blog, is not at all affiliated with sfyimby.org, the grassroots political organization (I am a volunteer in).
Interesting post. Amsterdam also has a lot of very skinny buildings which to me look aesthetically very pleasing from the outside. How are these skinny buildings on the inside? Hopefully it doesn't make the house feel like a narrow long corridor?
I appreciate the dedication to new housing, but to a non-architecture person, these buildings are all aesthetically atrocious.
One of the cardinal rules of architecture criticism is to withhold judgement until you can see the real thing. Renderings can be very misleading. That said, I think you're right that some of these buildings aren't going to be the most beautiful. Though I do like what I see with 5172 Mission Street. And I think 777 Sutter has the potential to be interesting with the belt and medallion configuration they seem to be going for.
This is an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...
Not everyone agree's with this opinion.