ARGHH!! As both a progressive and a Bay Area resident, I HATE to see the future restricted by 'activism'. Human scale??? SF already has the largest skyline in the Bay Area, it will only continue to grow! What the hell is this guy talking about.
what a douchbag,does this black guy know that the new towers in san francisco are going to stand higher than any other building west of the missisipi in the united states.what a complete ass.
I agree with you. Cities should keep their soul. Look at Paris, it hasn't changed much in the past 3 centuries, no skyscrapers in downtown, and it will stay that way.
San Francisco is more restrictive than Paris. The Paris urban form continues to expand outward to accommodate new people- San Francisco is surrounded by suburban sprawl and can't grow outward any more. SF isn't even very urban, or "human scale" as he claims. Everything west of Twin Peaks is two level row-houses on wide suburban streets. Paris actually has narrow streets and a SEVEN floor building limit. San Frisco NIMBY won't allow 7 floor terraced houses for the Sunset District!
I disagree, you forgot to account for the Federation & Starfleet effects. If I recall correctly then 24th century San Francisco houses the Starfleet Academy AND the Federation goverment infrastructure. Any city that suddenly becomes "capital" of a goverment spanning multiple planets and species, combined with being the site of their main fleet headquarters and training facilities will have a rather huge boost.
it's not 'cannon' but the the Star Trek universe is a different one from ours (There has been no Khan and no space exploration as extensive as in Star Trek) there has also been a third world war which destroyed most the east coast of America (New York was destroyed in a nuclear attack which is why the federation is based in Paris and not on the grounds of the U.N.) Americans would have moved to the west coast (like it or not) so all the west coast cities would have expanded hugely.
Are You kidding Me. This is supposed to be based in the 23rd century and for all We know San Francisco may have tens of millions of people living in it in that time. Besides it being the 23rd Century Cities on this planet most likely will be a hell of a lot more advanced looking and most likely will be just that, far more advanced. Hell According to theStarcraft story line at about the same time this was happening in that universe the global pop. was 23 Billion Human Beings.
I thought you were going to point out a true geographical error or something, but I'm afraid this criticism is purely hypothetical. Today's SF attitudes towards building codes are not necessarily tomorrow's. There are literally thousands of justifiable reasons for the type of towers shown in the reboot.
I'm not sure why people think massive cityscapes are ugly, I find them quite beautiful. This imagined future San Francisco is stunning! Perhaps by the 23rd century the populace is more educated and civilized and you'll find less "activists".
humm that was stupid ! did it ever occur to you that they have built bigger buildings by the 24th century because by then the population of the planet would exceed the numbers they are now.lets speculate since medical technolgy by then would keep people alive alot alonger.thus population over crowding like china would be world wide.not to mention more people= more places to live,more jobs/bussiness e.t.c ^^.PCE
Ya-know...this is only a movie. In the star trek universe there could have been a 22nd century earthquake that wiped out the whole bay area and then was rebuilt from scratch. We dont know.
The skyline of 24th century San Francisco tends to change quite a lot! during the TNG era son of the establishing shots showed the skyline in the distance and there were all kinds of domed structures and towers and in an episode of voyager the skyline is shown as largely the same as it is today! how the city appears in the future will depend on what kind of preservation laws are in place! I'd image certain iconic buildings like the TransAmerica building will be considered national monuments!
There's a reason why the tallest buildings in San Francisco and Hong Kong are not as tall as those in Chicago or Shanghai, its because they have natural beauty, and the views would be blocked by lots of super tall buildings. In fact there was a building proposed in Chicago in the 1980's that was 2,300 ft to the roof, the tallest building today (Burj Dubai) is 2,000 ft to the roof. The population projections for the next few hundred years is only a few more billion because there is 'greying' now.
bangkok and hong kong have been urban centers for many hundreds of years - even thousands of years according to some. san francisco became an urban center in the 1830s-1850s - a relatively short while ago. even compared to cities like new york, boston, sf is a newbie. at the rate that it has grown over the past 160 yrs, you could expect it to outpace even hong kong in a couple hundred years. no?
Thats like 200 years in the future, think about the population increases in that ammount of time, you might have to have the buildings be so big, also we might have gotten rid of all the activists. (Just kidding about the second part. lol
Interestingly enough, if you read Gene Roddenberry's script treatments for Star Trek The Motion Picture, he envisioned San Fransisco to have very few buildings. Humans would be living in a more park-like city with fewer environmental obstructions.
You really shouldn't make videos on something you know nothing about. San Francisco was destroyed in the star trek universe. Man made first contact with an alien race...alien race shared their great technology with man...San Francisco is rebuilt and made the capital of the Federation. This isn't a matter of flaw in your logic, but the fact that you clearly know nothing about the Star Trek universe. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I pay attention to the movies and shows, lol.
Yeah, Third World War, I believe. The Vulcans helped rebuild the world following the war, leading to the new San Francisco, the capital of the Federation. In 2161, at least.
@matrix86 It was never destroyed in the Star Trek Universe. Not one movie, or episode said it was. In fact, there was a movie, the 1st one and and a Voyager episode that suggested not much changed on San Francisco from now until then.
It was until Enterprise and the new movie that it looked like the city actually grew and progressed.
lol the buildings are just right, its'onley new materials, and new goverment will make ne look of it. No more old sanfranisco for shore.. say god beye from it, n-word :P
Forgive me if your comment is on more of a sarcastic tone than a realistic one:
Let's see. 1 black guy was the captain of a ship (does NOBODY remember that? It was the beginning of the friggin movie!), another black guy was a judge in the Federation, and the black girl plays a vital role in the movie (were it not for her, the Romulans would not have been discovered and been allowed to rape the galaxy). So 2 black men are in high positions of power, and a black girl is vital to the Federation.
Not to mention the characters of Uhura was involved in the first interracial television kiss back in the late 1960's. Uhura is a very important part of black women's history, at least as far as television and pop culture is concerned.
Actually, the population of earth is larger by nearly 10 billion people. Meaning that likely, even if there were laws about height of the city buildings, they will be repealed in order to prevent overcrowding.
BITCH BITCH BITCH their in the early 23rd century. Use the space between your ears for something besides keeping them apart. even now. the human race is advancing by leap and bounds so big chance can happen on the scale set the in movie. OH ONE MORE THING IT'S FICTIONAL.
... So let me just inform you all that in 100 years there is going to be an enormous corporate takeover of San francisco, and the hippies are going to be ousted from SF... 100 years later peace will be restored, and the hippies will be let back in to SF, and although they will grumble... the buildings will be built already.
Dude its fucking star trek, your bitching about the fact that theres no way technology will be advanced enough to build BIG buildings but its ok that they have a fucking spaceship.
If i remember right in First Contact its set just after the 3rd world war or something with most of the major city's destroyed. So after the vulcans came to earth they rebuilt San Francisco with new technology why would they make it look like it does now in the future
This analysis is completely invalid. Your talking about a speculative future element that has no guide for its creation. There are a unimaginable number of future events that would shape the future. For instance... what is the society did away with urban sprawl and cluster into city centers. It has already been purposed that the existing city centers will need to go up rather than out to accommodate future populations. So any analysis of a potential future would be pure theology.
I'm dont have much background knowledge of the Star Trek universe, i agree with RJ, its the future dude!
Just look at how fast advancements in technology are taking place today! 200 to 300 years from now, im sure that all forms of technology would have progessively increased, thus explaining the supersized structures in the film.
Also! Humans have made contact with other civilizations of different technologies, so explain that. There is another perspective of the skyline on Star Trek Voyager...
dude, its the future! maybe there was an earthquake and they rebuilt! you should find something important to bitch about, not that it would help anyone anymore than bitching about the size of the buildings in a city, IN A FICTIONAL MOVIE from the FICTIONAL FUTURE! ugh!
I would assume that SF was pretty much destroyed durin gthe various wars between our time and the Star Trek future. So if you're going to rebuild, why not go all out. It was said in Next Gen that earquakes had been tamed so to speak, but when did that start? If you can control or reduce damage, why not build build build.
I'm very happy to be adding to your 'coinage' - but if you are such a pro blogger, then you will accept that everything you say and do is being judged. You are a sad sad man, and I hope that everyone keeps watching your blog and commenting. You have to eat somehow, it's clear the real world isn't the place for you.
I doubt very much the skyline will change, perhaps you should start counciling to brace yourself for the change.
Stop being a goddamn NIMBY. You'll be dead by the time the 23rd or 24th Century comes around, so leave that issue to the NIMBY's of the future. The people of San Francisco shouldn't worry about height, but about the quality and architecture of the buildings built. As it currently stands, the skyline of Ssan Francisco is boaring and flat and adds no architectural value. Hopefully the planners and residents of S.F will grow some guts and balls.
I really hope San Fran does get a handful of supertalls just so I can see you blue with rage.. and then you can make a video of yourself to show us. Stop looking for problems where there aren't any, it's a movie.
What's the stereotype with fast-food and black people? I thought it was the stupid confederate rednecks who sit on their lazy fat asses and eat mcdonalds all day.. Rednecks are not black.. So your obviously pulling this out of your ass..
you're a moron and that was a stupid excuse to bitch about a movie. seriously this takes places hundreds of years from now. you expect everything to look the same ?? you sir FAIL
FAIL? .... Anyway, he never said StarTrek sucked fucking balls, He said that it was going to be a hit. Where did he say he bitched about the movie. Stop being such a god damn Fanboy and grow your own opinions.
Wow this is by far got to be the most retarded argument based on a sci-fi reality. But just for the sake of argument.
In the star trek universe, there was a WW3. Who know how decimated San Fran was, so everything had to be rebuilt. After first contact the human race received all kinds of new technology. Which were used in rebuilding the earth and cities whether destroyed or not.
But none of it's real, so stop bringing up inane topics that have no basis on reality.
You assume that building technology growth is liner where as it has been proven time and time again that technology grows exponentially.
Your argument is similar to a person in 1723 stating that space travel in 1969 is not possible because in the previous 100 years there had not been any major leap forward in transportation technology.
I get so pissed off when people don't take into account 'exponentials'. I mean, 50 years ago, 95% of the population was farming. Fast forward to today, .5% of the population are farmers. Technology doesn't work with general assumptions! It goes fast fast fast!
guys. there may be a large Vulcan populations residing on earth and in SF( presumably the main command centre and the major base camp of the Star Fleet) at that time, and look at how Vulcan styles their buildings in the ENTERPRISES serie
A lot of things can happen in 250 years. Just look at the last. On top of that, recent technological advances (and those to come) are shrinking our world. Earth changing events will occur more and more frequently as time passes, some of them good and some bad. Even if you ignore the numerous references in prior Trek to WWIII and other global cataclysms and assume humanity advances perfectly, to expect anything to remain as it is now over a period of time that great is a little too much to ask.
Since when was any tv series/movie 100% accurate, but honestly I don't see how San Francisco 200-300years later looks matters. Maybe the demolished a few buildings, modernised them, moved a few floors, honestly who cares?
Are you serious? I don't know what they plan to do with the new rewrite, but if it's not the Eugenics war, then it's some other war, but there was a BIG war in the Star Trek Timeline! Oh... and Kirk starts out in the middle of the Twenty-THIRD century, NOT Twenty-FOURTH!
I like the concept for San Francisco that was planned for the Lost Series: the Bay Area would have been reclaimed by nature (I suppose not unlike the depiction of NYC in Life After Humans) with exception of a few iconic structures, which evidently would have been preserved. (Matte artist Matt Yuricich described the painting he was going to do of this in Starlog Special Effects vol. 3., and it's touched upon in Harold Livingston's published draft of In Thy Image.)
I think the depiction of San Francisco in this ST preview is uninspired and unappealing, and I like your idea of preserving the city's character while still making it futuristic. (However, if gentrification continues, San Fran probably WILL probably lose its character.)
How offensive and insensitive can you be in trying to make a point? First you imply that Hong Kong has a distasteful skyline, and then you insult the people of Bangkok?
Zennie62: the bridge in the scene you're upset about is not the Bay Bridge-- it's the Golden Gate. If you look at just right of center, you can see the Palace of Fine Arts' dome near the waterfront.
I agree with your thought about the landscape but...This is the future. Don't you think the population has grown in the Future? Where do you think they are going to house the cadets who come to train at Starfleet. How about the Politicians and Ambasadors from other planets. Surely not outer space? They just work in outer space. This is a Mega UN and DC all in one. This is hotspot for training, politics and what not. Why would you think the building are too tall if for not for accomidations?
According to the book The World without Us by Alan Weisman, our population could conceivably become more manageable if every family voluntarily limited itself to one child each. Starting on page 368, Wisman says: If this somehow began tomorrow, our current 6.5 billion human population would drop by 1 billion by the middle of this century. [Snip] By 2075, we would have reduced our presence by almost half, down to 3.43 billion [Snip] By 2100, we would be at 1.6 billion..."
that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. seriously its in the future...in the way way future. that is whats great about movies made in the future...you can do whatever you want! get a life
Thats the dumbest complaint I have ever heard -you dont have a problem with teleportation - but the "buildings [that scale] dont belong" -Do you mean in science - FICTION? seriously, take a pill!
I noticed that too but I convinced myself another huge quake got rid of everything and that skyline is what resulted. I wonder if there'll be Nomad reference
I'd never seen any of your other videos, but what a lovely discovery... You have a lovely 'way' about you, and you're very engaging to watch. I completely agree with you about the new Star Trek movie's vision of San Francisco, or should I say 'revision' as in all previous Star Trek films and series, San Francisco has been shown to be 'provincial', lush, green, sunny, and Gene Roddenberry's original vision of the future: UTOPIC. Thanks for an lovely video and sharing your insightful views.
I cannot adequately respond, as YouTube is primitive in its commentary technology. I can't even remember what I said that made you comment back to me and I certainly can't find it here. I think you're being too serious about fictional things. Maybe that's what I said, originally, and you won't include a quote in your reply, so I'll never know. IT'S FICTION. And it's NOT HOSTILE to say that.
You don't see people bitching about terminator because the world is all fucked up.
And you say it's in the 24th century?
That's 300 years from now. A pretty damn long time. You can't compare the growth to a picture from 1900. Besides, growth is usually exponential, it doesn't happen at the same rate.
bricology, you're ignoring the political and social reality of urban development today, let alone 300 years from now.
Politically: Money talks. Any restrictions on height or density or setback are temporary. They will change as soon as a project is large enough to afford to change them.
Socially: Young urbanites will pay a huge premium to live close to the urban epicenter. Oakland is simply not on the map. :)
Infrastructure can be built. It will happen, SF will change. Adapt, or move. :D
"bricology, you're ignoring the political and social reality of urban development today..."
Uh...I worked for one of the biggest construction firms in SF. And YOUR bona fides?
"Politically: Money talks."
Not in SF. Shall I list some of the many proposed developments of the past 50 years that have been quashed by 1 politician or "public interest" group? I suggest you look up "Marincello" for a textbook example. And Sharp Park Golf Course will probably be closed because of its endangered frogs.
"Socially: Young urbanites will pay a huge premium to live close to the urban epicenter. Oakland is simply not on the map."
The amount they're willing to pay has a limit, and the cost is rising exponentially, even in a good economic climate. Why is Rincon South not fully sold, and Rincon North unbuilt?
"Infrastructure can be built."
It has to be paid for, either by existing residents through taxes/bonds (NO), or by developers, who won't pay an extra $100 million for off-site improvements.
Rincon South was just completed in September. A huge, obnoxious condo tower, against many objections.
If you still live in SF, perhaps you need to convince yourself that it's "special". And it is, in many ways. But the simple rule of $ still applies to big development.
IIRC, Urban West paid the city about $40M for the privilege of building Rincon. Big $, but as you point out, the price for these units has risen "exponentially". So the developers just pass on the costs.
But spaces went on the market 2-1/2 years before that, and THEY'RE STILL NOT SOLD OUT. I realize that the economy has an impact on this, but so too, the expectation that almost 400 units priced at market + 50% would be easy to sell.
"A huge, obnoxious condo tower, against many objections."
Yep, and the first high-rise of its type; perhaps the last.
"So the developers just pass on the costs."
-to nonexistent buyers. Doesn't bode well for North.
I'm always bemused by this "just let it grow" notion, beyond it sounding like some hippie zen koan. So EVERY city is required to "let it grow", even if it negatively impacts those already there, huh? SF is the closest thing in the western US to say, Amsterdam (we're even more densely populated). Would you also say that Amsterdam must allow unbridled growth and the transformation of the density and the skyline? If so, why?
This is a reality of city planning for metropolitan areas with limited land base, as SF has. Up is the only option, since out isn't really possible any more. In this sense, SF IS like Bangkok, just that SF is behind other cities in developing in this fashion, combined with an (IMHO) overinflated opinion of its existing architecture.
"Up is the only option, since out isn't really possible any more. In this sense, SF IS like Bangkok, just that SF is behind other cities..."
There's a bell curve that describes the demand for new building projects relative to the cost for building here, v/s the E. or N. Bay, or the Peninsula, where land is significantly cheaper. Right now, raw land in South Beach runs about $600 a square foot. Equivalent land in say, Oakland is about 1/5 of that. Growth will continue to shift to SF's neighbors.
300 years. We don't even know what 30 years will bring. 30 years ago we had smoking in offices (did we think that was gonna stop back then? No), a landfill in the Berkeley Marina skyline, no tall buildings in SOMA except the Union 76 clock tower (I miss that!), etc.
OK, I can't believe I'm responding. LOL. It's a fun debate, for sure. BTW, your response of "This post is illogical" had me laughing at 6:00am. You're still a freak. ;o)
zennie62 wrote: "Check the 1985 SF Downtown plan."
And?
That plan was a political tool, reflecting the balance of power between property owners, and developers, at that time.
Welcome to 2009! Google "Transit Center District Plan". The city has already concluded that "raising certain height limits and increasing development potential in the area would be consistent with the Citys vision".
Sounds like Abrams' vision is dead-on. One Rincon Hill is just a baby step. :D
I looked up two different Star Trek Timelines and yes, Earth was devastated in 2053 by World War III with most major cities destroyed s I guess means all the sf hippies died.
Please do your research in the Star Trek Universe before flaming it.
First of all, *this* Trek happens in the *23rd* Century, not the 24th. So it's maybe 250 years in the future, not 300. This chronology's been pretty well settled over the past twenty or so years.
Second, I find this skyline more believable than that we could agree on how to rebuild the Golden Gate Bridge so quickly after the events of X-Men 3.
so what! its a movie. this reviewed sounds like the opinion of a bitter man. plus why add "where the black men? " to the top of the screen, pushing an agenda or something? i mean if he has a seriously problem with the movie just avoid and dont review the trailer thats just contributing to its publicity.
No offense, but to an old time San Franciscan who fought against the oversize buildings there today, you truly underestimate the forces of development. The people of San Francisco couldn't stop truly ugly buildings like the Bank of America; what makes you think they're going to be any more effective in the future?
Oh, Mary, get a life. IT'S A MOVIE. Tell ya what you do. Go get yourself cryogenically frozen, set the timer for the 24th century, wake up, and start a protest movement. K?
The photo you used as a comparison is from the 80's or 90's, before the Rincon Hill towers and a whole lot of other buildings went up. The SF of today already looks different than the photo you used as a comparison. Your argument is a little bit disingenuous.
I'm just as offended by the "Santa Fe Fit" ad that comes up on your video as you are about the outsized buildings in Star Trek. I was born and raised in Santa Fe, and I lived in San Francisco for many years. I'm not opposed to a futuristic view (when we're all dead and gone) of San Francisco, but the ridiculous holistic and spiritual view of Santa Fe TODAY offends me deeply.
And yes, I realize I just mixed pessimism and optimism in the same comment. It's not a contradiction -- we'll have rubber buildings, but ninety percent of the population won't be able to read. (And among those who can, they'll choose stuff that makes Dan Brown look like Dostoyevsky.)
What about all that crap they're building in the Rincon/South Beach area?
By the time this takes place, no one will have any sense of taste or aesthetics, so no one will care. (See Idiocracy.) You can't get people to watch black and white movies, and Paris Hilton is famous. We're headed for a Wall-E future.
Besides, the buildings in 2250 will probably be suspended by floating anti-gravity doohickeys and be made of rubberized steel. Earthquakes will be fun.
i've analyzed that seen that scene. i'm pretty sure you are comparing the wrong location, it is not the bay bridge you are looking at. it's the GG bridge and marina (note the restored crissy field). star fleet academy is based in the presido. you make a good point about human scale design.
Is this for real, meaning... harping on a movie skyline? In the words of William Shatner: "Have you ever kissed a girl?!?". C'mon.. 300 years from now. No one will know what anything will be like. IT'S A MOVIE.
Sorry about the shitstorm of stupid comments from people looking for a venue to spew on.
You're absolutely right about San Francisco and its skyline (I'm a native). We would _never_ allow this sort of building to take place. Outsiders can't seem to understand that people in SF (as opposed to LA and other cities) really have a sense of our past, and try to preserve it.
One odd thing: 300 years in the future it's unlikely that the Bay Bridge will still exist, unless it's an exact re-creation.
ROFLMAO. Since when have SF "activists" prevented any development. Heck, the activists usually PAY for the development, by bond measures. The developers just have to grease a bond proposition with a suitably humanist title. Low-income housing...children's hospitals...civic space,,,heh. :p
The only thing preventing a massive SF skyline is the richter scale. But a civilization with warp drive can probably prevent earthquakes too. :D
"The only thing preventing a massive SF skyline is the richter scale."
Hardly true. At least as big of an impediment is the fact that all other infrastructure would have to be grown to match. For every 1% increase in population, we would have to build 1% more hospital facilities, provide 1% more public transit and parking, 1% more police and fire, repair roads 1% more often, and so on. We have neither the room nor the budget for doing that.
"Room? There is plenty of air space above the current buildings. Budget? It grows primarily by increasing the tax base."
You really don't grasp the reality of the situation. First, what you call "air space" is severely limited by height, setback and density restrictions. Second, the "tax base" doesn't follow linear growth; it requires huge investments in infrastructure, such as adding water and sewage trunks, power substations, fire stations, etc. NONE of that can come AFTER building big.
Oh, and my bona fides: I was trained as an architect, and I worked for one of the biggest construction firms in the Bay Area, on a number of high-rise projects in SF in the '90s and early '00s. Part of my job entailed working with the Planning Commission, Permits and other agencies.
Also, even a relatively modest high-rise like Rincon required concessions from the developer, big investments in infrastructure and years of back and forth with the City.
What the fuck. i lived here all my life and i definitely think that would happen in 300 years. They have fuckin spaceships and shit and theyre flying at like 10000000 miles per hour or however fast fuckin warp speed is, and you dont think there are gonna be buildings that tall? and i really dont think anyone in the city would have any choice over what other people do with their property, even if anyone did care.
I have to say, that I disagree wholeheartedly. While you are correct in your statements regarding current conditions including traditionalist ideologies, we are talking about 2 centuries down the road. We are also talking about a world population of 6,706,993,152 as of July 2008 which is projected to double in the next 50 years alone. Is it really so unrealistic then to imagine SF, in an effort to maintain its environment (not character), increasing the size of its buildings to this extent?
Excellent. I agree entirely with your viewpoint. I live in San Francisco and reacted in horror seeing these huge skyscrapers crowding out the SF skyline. Preposterous! And the vast majority of SF residents would fight to the end to prevent such a monstrosity. Again, this is sci/fi folks. And for whatever reason, it seems large skyscrapers seem to appear to the futurists of hollywood.
Look everyone stop taking the piss, the point this man is making is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT, not only that but can't you TELL that this man knows what San Fran would look like in the future? It's obvious he does, because he jhas photos of San Fran NOW and THEN. This has always enabled people to see into the future. And don't, whatever you do, call it FRISCO.
In all do respect, that photo you compared the "future San Francisco" to is completely outdated, If you look at San Francisco now in 2009, Construction is booming, and taller buildings are being built in the South of Market district, where they once were not allowed, also, a 1,200 foot building has been approved along with two other 1,000 foot buildings, San Francisco is growing fast again, and by that time, the building height limits are being eased.
In the time line, Earth went through a third World War after. 600 people million died. Major cities and governments had also been destroyed. I'm pretty sure the people that would have got their panties in a bunch of zoning laws...would be dead.
The whole city we see today was probably leveled in WW3 and completely rebuilt.
Kiwibirdman1701 1 month ago
ARGHH!! As both a progressive and a Bay Area resident, I HATE to see the future restricted by 'activism'. Human scale??? SF already has the largest skyline in the Bay Area, it will only continue to grow! What the hell is this guy talking about.
Thumbs up for progress!
MultiKdizzle 2 months ago
what a douchbag,does this black guy know that the new towers in san francisco are going to stand higher than any other building west of the missisipi in the united states.what a complete ass.
dcanjura123 6 months ago
Comment removed
RomanV101 6 months ago
This guy's a FIDIOT
mccookboidat 6 months ago
I agree with you. Cities should keep their soul. Look at Paris, it hasn't changed much in the past 3 centuries, no skyscrapers in downtown, and it will stay that way.
ClemyNX 8 months ago
@ClemyNX
San Francisco is more restrictive than Paris. The Paris urban form continues to expand outward to accommodate new people- San Francisco is surrounded by suburban sprawl and can't grow outward any more. SF isn't even very urban, or "human scale" as he claims. Everything west of Twin Peaks is two level row-houses on wide suburban streets. Paris actually has narrow streets and a SEVEN floor building limit. San Frisco NIMBY won't allow 7 floor terraced houses for the Sunset District!
RomanV101 6 months ago
I disagree, you forgot to account for the Federation & Starfleet effects. If I recall correctly then 24th century San Francisco houses the Starfleet Academy AND the Federation goverment infrastructure. Any city that suddenly becomes "capital" of a goverment spanning multiple planets and species, combined with being the site of their main fleet headquarters and training facilities will have a rather huge boost.
TheCardolan 11 months ago
it's not 'cannon' but the the Star Trek universe is a different one from ours (There has been no Khan and no space exploration as extensive as in Star Trek) there has also been a third world war which destroyed most the east coast of America (New York was destroyed in a nuclear attack which is why the federation is based in Paris and not on the grounds of the U.N.) Americans would have moved to the west coast (like it or not) so all the west coast cities would have expanded hugely.
tbone1975uk 1 year ago
no one cares wut ur talkin bout!!
559northerncali 1 year ago
Wowwwwwww really it takes place in the 24 century!!! You don't think possibly by then buildings could grow??????
JackMotionFilm 1 year ago
Are You kidding Me. This is supposed to be based in the 23rd century and for all We know San Francisco may have tens of millions of people living in it in that time. Besides it being the 23rd Century Cities on this planet most likely will be a hell of a lot more advanced looking and most likely will be just that, far more advanced. Hell According to theStarcraft story line at about the same time this was happening in that universe the global pop. was 23 Billion Human Beings.
Nightshift10000 1 year ago
I thought you were going to point out a true geographical error or something, but I'm afraid this criticism is purely hypothetical. Today's SF attitudes towards building codes are not necessarily tomorrow's. There are literally thousands of justifiable reasons for the type of towers shown in the reboot.
mooseboy18 1 year ago
I'm not sure why people think massive cityscapes are ugly, I find them quite beautiful. This imagined future San Francisco is stunning! Perhaps by the 23rd century the populace is more educated and civilized and you'll find less "activists".
CiCiSFU 1 year ago
humm that was stupid ! did it ever occur to you that they have built bigger buildings by the 24th century because by then the population of the planet would exceed the numbers they are now.lets speculate since medical technolgy by then would keep people alive alot alonger.thus population over crowding like china would be world wide.not to mention more people= more places to live,more jobs/bussiness e.t.c ^^.PCE
ASH6977 1 year ago
Ya-know...this is only a movie. In the star trek universe there could have been a 22nd century earthquake that wiped out the whole bay area and then was rebuilt from scratch. We dont know.
saganhill 1 year ago
The skyline of 24th century San Francisco tends to change quite a lot! during the TNG era son of the establishing shots showed the skyline in the distance and there were all kinds of domed structures and towers and in an episode of voyager the skyline is shown as largely the same as it is today! how the city appears in the future will depend on what kind of preservation laws are in place! I'd image certain iconic buildings like the TransAmerica building will be considered national monuments!
katakisLives 1 year ago
There's a reason why the tallest buildings in San Francisco and Hong Kong are not as tall as those in Chicago or Shanghai, its because they have natural beauty, and the views would be blocked by lots of super tall buildings. In fact there was a building proposed in Chicago in the 1980's that was 2,300 ft to the roof, the tallest building today (Burj Dubai) is 2,000 ft to the roof. The population projections for the next few hundred years is only a few more billion because there is 'greying' now.
n800chameleon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
shut up it's just a goddamn movie
xmagneticx 1 year ago
bangkok and hong kong have been urban centers for many hundreds of years - even thousands of years according to some. san francisco became an urban center in the 1830s-1850s - a relatively short while ago. even compared to cities like new york, boston, sf is a newbie. at the rate that it has grown over the past 160 yrs, you could expect it to outpace even hong kong in a couple hundred years. no?
ho2cultcha 1 year ago
look at the size of cock
in your mouth wrong size. lol... im BEN and hi is talking about my cock
RETLAW545 1 year ago
look at the size of cock
in your mouth wrong size. lol
RETLAW545 1 year ago
Btw. It's an Alternate Universe. So Abrams can do as he pleases.
jakfromshef 1 year ago
Really? Is this serious?
jokerhawk21681 1 year ago
Thats like 200 years in the future, think about the population increases in that ammount of time, you might have to have the buildings be so big, also we might have gotten rid of all the activists. (Just kidding about the second part. lol
trektothetroops 1 year ago
This is hilarious. Someone's complaining about a fictional skyline in a fictional story that is set in the 23rd century? LOL
TexasBlues2000 1 year ago
Worst review ever!
86koza86 1 year ago
Interestingly enough, if you read Gene Roddenberry's script treatments for Star Trek The Motion Picture, he envisioned San Fransisco to have very few buildings. Humans would be living in a more park-like city with fewer environmental obstructions.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago
LOL. But it's in the future right?
otdtyh 2 years ago
You really shouldn't make videos on something you know nothing about. San Francisco was destroyed in the star trek universe. Man made first contact with an alien race...alien race shared their great technology with man...San Francisco is rebuilt and made the capital of the Federation. This isn't a matter of flaw in your logic, but the fact that you clearly know nothing about the Star Trek universe. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I pay attention to the movies and shows, lol.
matrix86 2 years ago
Yeah, Third World War, I believe. The Vulcans helped rebuild the world following the war, leading to the new San Francisco, the capital of the Federation. In 2161, at least.
Omondii 2 years ago
@Omondii Actually, the Federation President is based in Paris, San Fransisco is merely the location of Starfleet Headquarters.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago
@matrix86 It was never destroyed in the Star Trek Universe. Not one movie, or episode said it was. In fact, there was a movie, the 1st one and and a Voyager episode that suggested not much changed on San Francisco from now until then.
It was until Enterprise and the new movie that it looked like the city actually grew and progressed.
CiCiSFU 1 year ago
its just a movie
sanderrodijk 2 years ago
lol the buildings are just right, its'onley new materials, and new goverment will make ne look of it. No more old sanfranisco for shore.. say god beye from it, n-word :P
zelvahunter 2 years ago
Dude get over it. It's Future and it's SCIENCE FICTION. Plus....It's Hollywood they get everything wrong. Look at the show "Trauma".......FAIL!
PaulsPhotoService 2 years ago
Star Trek is going to be a big hit, but it's missing one thing: It got San Francisco all wrong.
Oh and there are no brothers in the movie. Just a few baby mommas, and shit.
sibermonkey 2 years ago
Forgive me if your comment is on more of a sarcastic tone than a realistic one:
Let's see. 1 black guy was the captain of a ship (does NOBODY remember that? It was the beginning of the friggin movie!), another black guy was a judge in the Federation, and the black girl plays a vital role in the movie (were it not for her, the Romulans would not have been discovered and been allowed to rape the galaxy). So 2 black men are in high positions of power, and a black girl is vital to the Federation.
matrix86 2 years ago
Not to mention the characters of Uhura was involved in the first interracial television kiss back in the late 1960's. Uhura is a very important part of black women's history, at least as far as television and pop culture is concerned.
Omondii 2 years ago
yes they have a great role in the federation. Is any one say otherwise?
jassoe 2 years ago
if you dont like the design of the city than thats one thing, but this is supposed to be SF as it looks in the 23th century in Abrams head.
henkman00 2 years ago
Actually, the population of earth is larger by nearly 10 billion people. Meaning that likely, even if there were laws about height of the city buildings, they will be repealed in order to prevent overcrowding.
JumbaChick85 2 years ago
BITCH BITCH BITCH their in the early 23rd century. Use the space between your ears for something besides keeping them apart. even now. the human race is advancing by leap and bounds so big chance can happen on the scale set the in movie. OH ONE MORE THING IT'S FICTIONAL.
deltamp787 2 years ago
... So let me just inform you all that in 100 years there is going to be an enormous corporate takeover of San francisco, and the hippies are going to be ousted from SF... 100 years later peace will be restored, and the hippies will be let back in to SF, and although they will grumble... the buildings will be built already.
XD
austinlovesasians 2 years ago
Dude its fucking star trek, your bitching about the fact that theres no way technology will be advanced enough to build BIG buildings but its ok that they have a fucking spaceship.
burtondevore 2 years ago
If i remember right in First Contact its set just after the 3rd world war or something with most of the major city's destroyed. So after the vulcans came to earth they rebuilt San Francisco with new technology why would they make it look like it does now in the future
XDyorkieXD 2 years ago 2
Well thats it! they got San Francisco wrong! I am not buying it on Blu Ray when it comes out on 11.17.09.....what a dumbass!
DarthCybie 2 years ago
This analysis is completely invalid. Your talking about a speculative future element that has no guide for its creation. There are a unimaginable number of future events that would shape the future. For instance... what is the society did away with urban sprawl and cluster into city centers. It has already been purposed that the existing city centers will need to go up rather than out to accommodate future populations. So any analysis of a potential future would be pure theology.
Elepski 2 years ago 12
@Elepski You obviously never saw a star trek before this one. They used to respect the aspect of the city.
ClemyNX 8 months ago
You are one weird dude....
chelmsleyu 2 years ago
I'm dont have much background knowledge of the Star Trek universe, i agree with RJ, its the future dude!
Just look at how fast advancements in technology are taking place today! 200 to 300 years from now, im sure that all forms of technology would have progessively increased, thus explaining the supersized structures in the film.
Also! Humans have made contact with other civilizations of different technologies, so explain that. There is another perspective of the skyline on Star Trek Voyager...
Knepmek 2 years ago
dude, its the future! maybe there was an earthquake and they rebuilt! you should find something important to bitch about, not that it would help anyone anymore than bitching about the size of the buildings in a city, IN A FICTIONAL MOVIE from the FICTIONAL FUTURE! ugh!
RJSayles85 2 years ago
dude its called laziness
Abrams was just too lazy too come into the digital meetings to make approvals and modifications to the work
godscuttingyoudown 2 years ago
I agree. These people should have seen ST IV to get the bridge right.
myamyone 2 years ago 2
Did you see "First Contact"??? They got in touch with alien civilizations, and got all their technology... So Move on.
jupagu3 2 years ago
shut yo ass up
!
coldthugz 2 years ago
San Francisco is so "provincial" that it became the capital of the United Federation of Planets and headquarters to Starfleet Command...
Botley 2 years ago
Dude what planet do you come from?
STPMech 2 years ago
in his defence there are parts of the story that take place in the 24th century.
dsjj251 2 years ago
I would assume that SF was pretty much destroyed durin gthe various wars between our time and the Star Trek future. So if you're going to rebuild, why not go all out. It was said in Next Gen that earquakes had been tamed so to speak, but when did that start? If you can control or reduce damage, why not build build build.
Iluthra 2 years ago
ur such a loser.
rdevil1966 2 years ago 5
So it was the Golden Gate Bridge!!!!
EPIC FAIL!
lightyearmodels 2 years ago
I'm very happy to be adding to your 'coinage' - but if you are such a pro blogger, then you will accept that everything you say and do is being judged. You are a sad sad man, and I hope that everyone keeps watching your blog and commenting. You have to eat somehow, it's clear the real world isn't the place for you.
I doubt very much the skyline will change, perhaps you should start counciling to brace yourself for the change.
lxberman 2 years ago
The new movie is not set in the 24th century. Fail.
Decipher13 2 years ago
No? Wikipedia says it's set in year 2387. That looks pretty much like 24th century for me.
matafior 2 years ago
haha. what an idiotic commentary.
atl2phx 2 years ago 3
Cities evolve and grow, you want more urban sprawl or density? NIMBYS I swear
ayomateo 2 years ago 3
Stop being a goddamn NIMBY. You'll be dead by the time the 23rd or 24th Century comes around, so leave that issue to the NIMBY's of the future. The people of San Francisco shouldn't worry about height, but about the quality and architecture of the buildings built. As it currently stands, the skyline of Ssan Francisco is boaring and flat and adds no architectural value. Hopefully the planners and residents of S.F will grow some guts and balls.
BTW if Transbay Terminal Tower is built...
BVictor21 2 years ago
I really hope San Fran does get a handful of supertalls just so I can see you blue with rage.. and then you can make a video of yourself to show us. Stop looking for problems where there aren't any, it's a movie.
KillerChair1 2 years ago
the real moron !!! lol
akeey22 2 years ago
There are no niggers in the future, we got rid of fastfood and crack, so they had nothing to sustain themselves with or live for.
AlignedHubSeeker 2 years ago
What a cold dude. Hopefully YOUR gene pool dies off otherwise we're fucked.
eartant 2 years ago 2
What's the stereotype with fast-food and black people? I thought it was the stupid confederate rednecks who sit on their lazy fat asses and eat mcdonalds all day.. Rednecks are not black.. So your obviously pulling this out of your ass..
lucashp550 2 years ago
This is the first I've heard of the fast food stereotype with black people...wtf?
bldude2 2 years ago
you're a moron and that was a stupid excuse to bitch about a movie. seriously this takes places hundreds of years from now. you expect everything to look the same ?? you sir FAIL
o0zeroeffect0o 2 years ago
FAIL? .... Anyway, he never said StarTrek sucked fucking balls, He said that it was going to be a hit. Where did he say he bitched about the movie. Stop being such a god damn Fanboy and grow your own opinions.
lucashp550 2 years ago
They messed up San Fran!?!? I live in the bay area too, and I was like wtheo!!! lol
dojokonojo 2 years ago
I agree, I live in SF, and I was pissed when I saw this movie.
hogwashsentinel 2 years ago
what a jerk off!...
wickdprpls 2 years ago
IT'S A MOVIE.
wolf1981 2 years ago
Wow this is by far got to be the most retarded argument based on a sci-fi reality. But just for the sake of argument.
In the star trek universe, there was a WW3. Who know how decimated San Fran was, so everything had to be rebuilt. After first contact the human race received all kinds of new technology. Which were used in rebuilding the earth and cities whether destroyed or not.
But none of it's real, so stop bringing up inane topics that have no basis on reality.
nuigurumi33 2 years ago
You assume that building technology growth is liner where as it has been proven time and time again that technology grows exponentially.
Your argument is similar to a person in 1723 stating that space travel in 1969 is not possible because in the previous 100 years there had not been any major leap forward in transportation technology.
Go eat a Tiberian slime worm.
x96bell3 2 years ago 2
I get so pissed off when people don't take into account 'exponentials'. I mean, 50 years ago, 95% of the population was farming. Fast forward to today, .5% of the population are farmers. Technology doesn't work with general assumptions! It goes fast fast fast!
ragingflamerboy 2 years ago
guys. there may be a large Vulcan populations residing on earth and in SF( presumably the main command centre and the major base camp of the Star Fleet) at that time, and look at how Vulcan styles their buildings in the ENTERPRISES serie
eddielung31 2 years ago
A lot of things can happen in 250 years. Just look at the last. On top of that, recent technological advances (and those to come) are shrinking our world. Earth changing events will occur more and more frequently as time passes, some of them good and some bad. Even if you ignore the numerous references in prior Trek to WWIII and other global cataclysms and assume humanity advances perfectly, to expect anything to remain as it is now over a period of time that great is a little too much to ask.
ericwdhs 2 years ago
Duh! WW3 caused most of the major cities on earth to be destroyed or heavily damaged! Especially the west coast of the US
Mstevens811 2 years ago 2
thats what i was thinking. lol
tinkles01 2 years ago
How could you get a 24 century "fictional" San Francisco wrong? I mean look at the world population now and it's rapid growing rate;
He also failed to mention the Tagruato Corporation Building appeared on frame left within the S.F skyline.
jediyves 2 years ago
Since when was any tv series/movie 100% accurate, but honestly I don't see how San Francisco 200-300years later looks matters. Maybe the demolished a few buildings, modernised them, moved a few floors, honestly who cares?
Razor1262 2 years ago
LOL! Dooouche
tommycam7 2 years ago
You idiot, they did say in WWIII most of the major cities have been destroyed. Watch Star trek 1st contact.
So maybe San Francisco took the place of NYC after WWIII.
Fragem420 2 years ago
Agreed.
I mean why is Starfleet HQ not located in Washington DC or London?
Good reference.
jediyves 2 years ago
Have you ever seen spongebob?
Because i seriously think they used some kind of special effects to make the plants taller.
Dude, seriously.. its about space travel. That part is kind of more unlikely to happen then those bigger buildings will be at San Francico..
kabouwe 2 years ago
you are indeed a loser sir.
I agree with the others, get a life. It's science fiction mate, have some imagination.
I hope for your sake the buildings in san fran stay small so as to not frighten you too much about the future.
lxberman 2 years ago
jesus... buahahaha
costecro 2 years ago
Are you serious? I don't know what they plan to do with the new rewrite, but if it's not the Eugenics war, then it's some other war, but there was a BIG war in the Star Trek Timeline! Oh... and Kirk starts out in the middle of the Twenty-THIRD century, NOT Twenty-FOURTH!
Trekker indeed..... BAH!
techraan 2 years ago
My suggestion... get a life!
sparkyjcs 2 years ago
the buildings are bigger? who cares, its a movie.
somnous 2 years ago
I like the concept for San Francisco that was planned for the Lost Series: the Bay Area would have been reclaimed by nature (I suppose not unlike the depiction of NYC in Life After Humans) with exception of a few iconic structures, which evidently would have been preserved. (Matte artist Matt Yuricich described the painting he was going to do of this in Starlog Special Effects vol. 3., and it's touched upon in Harold Livingston's published draft of In Thy Image.)
FreedomforHaiti 2 years ago
I think the depiction of San Francisco in this ST preview is uninspired and unappealing, and I like your idea of preserving the city's character while still making it futuristic. (However, if gentrification continues, San Fran probably WILL probably lose its character.)
FreedomforHaiti 2 years ago
Dude you are retarded no offence
galaxyblade 2 years ago
How offensive and insensitive can you be in trying to make a point? First you imply that Hong Kong has a distasteful skyline, and then you insult the people of Bangkok?
fatelove 2 years ago
I am from Hong Kong-Good to know that we are still in one piece even after the WWIII, LOL
eddielung31 2 years ago
>The people of our planet used to be warlike and
unreasonable,like you zennie...
IM1NML 2 years ago
Zennie62: the bridge in the scene you're upset about is not the Bay Bridge-- it's the Golden Gate. If you look at just right of center, you can see the Palace of Fine Arts' dome near the waterfront.
klee7609 2 years ago
*shakes head* get a life
TNAXW 2 years ago
I agree with your thought about the landscape but...This is the future. Don't you think the population has grown in the Future? Where do you think they are going to house the cadets who come to train at Starfleet. How about the Politicians and Ambasadors from other planets. Surely not outer space? They just work in outer space. This is a Mega UN and DC all in one. This is hotspot for training, politics and what not. Why would you think the building are too tall if for not for accomidations?
jvalentin1 2 years ago
According to the book The World without Us by Alan Weisman, our population could conceivably become more manageable if every family voluntarily limited itself to one child each. Starting on page 368, Wisman says: If this somehow began tomorrow, our current 6.5 billion human population would drop by 1 billion by the middle of this century. [Snip] By 2075, we would have reduced our presence by almost half, down to 3.43 billion [Snip] By 2100, we would be at 1.6 billion..."
FreedomforHaiti 2 years ago
that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. seriously its in the future...in the way way future. that is whats great about movies made in the future...you can do whatever you want! get a life
aloradiane 2 years ago
Holy shit, a story-line? WHOA
I mean, everyone knows San Francisco is more of a European city....
CoMa7oSe 2 years ago
heh heh, you said cock
magsie666 2 years ago
Thats the dumbest complaint I have ever heard -you dont have a problem with teleportation - but the "buildings [that scale] dont belong" -Do you mean in science - FICTION? seriously, take a pill!
IM1NML 2 years ago 2
I noticed that too but I convinced myself another huge quake got rid of everything and that skyline is what resulted. I wonder if there'll be Nomad reference
Quixotic1018 2 years ago
I'd never seen any of your other videos, but what a lovely discovery... You have a lovely 'way' about you, and you're very engaging to watch. I completely agree with you about the new Star Trek movie's vision of San Francisco, or should I say 'revision' as in all previous Star Trek films and series, San Francisco has been shown to be 'provincial', lush, green, sunny, and Gene Roddenberry's original vision of the future: UTOPIC. Thanks for an lovely video and sharing your insightful views.
alpuretim 2 years ago
I cannot adequately respond, as YouTube is primitive in its commentary technology. I can't even remember what I said that made you comment back to me and I certainly can't find it here. I think you're being too serious about fictional things. Maybe that's what I said, originally, and you won't include a quote in your reply, so I'll never know. IT'S FICTION. And it's NOT HOSTILE to say that.
michellestmarie 2 years ago
Hey Zennie, I'm sorry these people can't carry on a more civilized discussion. Your reactions and replies to these offensive people are commendable.
MiLo2472007 2 years ago
It's just fiction dude.
You don't see people bitching about terminator because the world is all fucked up.
And you say it's in the 24th century?
That's 300 years from now. A pretty damn long time. You can't compare the growth to a picture from 1900. Besides, growth is usually exponential, it doesn't happen at the same rate.
Shit I hope SF looks like that in 2300.
yoshimitsu31 2 years ago 2
It just happens that way. A city ultimately represents the desires of its people, relative to their resources.
If enough people pay enough $ to live in skyscrapers by the bay, the buildings will go up, period. Current residents' nostalgia makes zero difference.
If it happens in your lifetime, you can get angry, or move, or embrace it, or ignore it. Your call. Peace out. :)
superifico 2 years ago
bricology, you're ignoring the political and social reality of urban development today, let alone 300 years from now.
Politically: Money talks. Any restrictions on height or density or setback are temporary. They will change as soon as a project is large enough to afford to change them.
Socially: Young urbanites will pay a huge premium to live close to the urban epicenter. Oakland is simply not on the map. :)
Infrastructure can be built. It will happen, SF will change. Adapt, or move. :D
superifico 2 years ago
"bricology, you're ignoring the political and social reality of urban development today..."
Uh...I worked for one of the biggest construction firms in SF. And YOUR bona fides?
"Politically: Money talks."
Not in SF. Shall I list some of the many proposed developments of the past 50 years that have been quashed by 1 politician or "public interest" group? I suggest you look up "Marincello" for a textbook example. And Sharp Park Golf Course will probably be closed because of its endangered frogs.
bricology 2 years ago
"Socially: Young urbanites will pay a huge premium to live close to the urban epicenter. Oakland is simply not on the map."
The amount they're willing to pay has a limit, and the cost is rising exponentially, even in a good economic climate. Why is Rincon South not fully sold, and Rincon North unbuilt?
"Infrastructure can be built."
It has to be paid for, either by existing residents through taxes/bonds (NO), or by developers, who won't pay an extra $100 million for off-site improvements.
bricology 2 years ago
Rincon South was just completed in September. A huge, obnoxious condo tower, against many objections.
If you still live in SF, perhaps you need to convince yourself that it's "special". And it is, in many ways. But the simple rule of $ still applies to big development.
IIRC, Urban West paid the city about $40M for the privilege of building Rincon. Big $, but as you point out, the price for these units has risen "exponentially". So the developers just pass on the costs.
Just let it grow. ;)
superifico 2 years ago
"Rincon South was just completed in September."
But spaces went on the market 2-1/2 years before that, and THEY'RE STILL NOT SOLD OUT. I realize that the economy has an impact on this, but so too, the expectation that almost 400 units priced at market + 50% would be easy to sell.
"A huge, obnoxious condo tower, against many objections."
Yep, and the first high-rise of its type; perhaps the last.
"So the developers just pass on the costs."
-to nonexistent buyers. Doesn't bode well for North.
bricology 2 years ago
"Just let it grow. ;)"
Gah. Give the damned smileys a rest, already.
I'm always bemused by this "just let it grow" notion, beyond it sounding like some hippie zen koan. So EVERY city is required to "let it grow", even if it negatively impacts those already there, huh? SF is the closest thing in the western US to say, Amsterdam (we're even more densely populated). Would you also say that Amsterdam must allow unbridled growth and the transformation of the density and the skyline? If so, why?
bricology 2 years ago
Comment removed
mister2nt 2 years ago
This is a reality of city planning for metropolitan areas with limited land base, as SF has. Up is the only option, since out isn't really possible any more. In this sense, SF IS like Bangkok, just that SF is behind other cities in developing in this fashion, combined with an (IMHO) overinflated opinion of its existing architecture.
Liquado 2 years ago
"Up is the only option, since out isn't really possible any more. In this sense, SF IS like Bangkok, just that SF is behind other cities..."
There's a bell curve that describes the demand for new building projects relative to the cost for building here, v/s the E. or N. Bay, or the Peninsula, where land is significantly cheaper. Right now, raw land in South Beach runs about $600 a square foot. Equivalent land in say, Oakland is about 1/5 of that. Growth will continue to shift to SF's neighbors.
bricology 2 years ago
Why haven't you killed yourself yet?
StradTrumpeter 2 years ago
300 years. We don't even know what 30 years will bring. 30 years ago we had smoking in offices (did we think that was gonna stop back then? No), a landfill in the Berkeley Marina skyline, no tall buildings in SOMA except the Union 76 clock tower (I miss that!), etc.
OK, I can't believe I'm responding. LOL. It's a fun debate, for sure. BTW, your response of "This post is illogical" had me laughing at 6:00am. You're still a freak. ;o)
fkndave 2 years ago
Word. Love a good geek debate though.
I'm a SF resident and wouldn't want the "Manhattanization" of the city anytime soon. But all I can say is... 300 years is a *long* time.
arscon 2 years ago
zennie62 wrote: "Check the 1985 SF Downtown plan."
And?
That plan was a political tool, reflecting the balance of power between property owners, and developers, at that time.
Welcome to 2009! Google "Transit Center District Plan". The city has already concluded that "raising certain height limits and increasing development potential in the area would be consistent with the Citys vision".
Sounds like Abrams' vision is dead-on. One Rincon Hill is just a baby step. :D
superifico 2 years ago
I looked up two different Star Trek Timelines and yes, Earth was devastated in 2053 by World War III with most major cities destroyed s I guess means all the sf hippies died.
Please do your research in the Star Trek Universe before flaming it.
mister2nt 2 years ago
Wasn't Star Trek's San Francisco rebuilt after a WW3 type of thing? I remember that from First Contact.
mister2nt 2 years ago
First of all, *this* Trek happens in the *23rd* Century, not the 24th. So it's maybe 250 years in the future, not 300. This chronology's been pretty well settled over the past twenty or so years.
Second, I find this skyline more believable than that we could agree on how to rebuild the Golden Gate Bridge so quickly after the events of X-Men 3.
lorendavidsonmusic 2 years ago
so what! its a movie. this reviewed sounds like the opinion of a bitter man. plus why add "where the black men? " to the top of the screen, pushing an agenda or something? i mean if he has a seriously problem with the movie just avoid and dont review the trailer thats just contributing to its publicity.
ericsgonzalez 2 years ago
No offense, but to an old time San Franciscan who fought against the oversize buildings there today, you truly underestimate the forces of development. The people of San Francisco couldn't stop truly ugly buildings like the Bank of America; what makes you think they're going to be any more effective in the future?
jimgagnon 2 years ago
Oh, Mary, get a life. IT'S A MOVIE. Tell ya what you do. Go get yourself cryogenically frozen, set the timer for the 24th century, wake up, and start a protest movement. K?
sffacetious 2 years ago 3
The photo you used as a comparison is from the 80's or 90's, before the Rincon Hill towers and a whole lot of other buildings went up. The SF of today already looks different than the photo you used as a comparison. Your argument is a little bit disingenuous.
dspserpico 2 years ago 4
i love hong kong and would welcome sf looking "futuristic" like that!
glowingstar71 2 years ago 4
I'm just as offended by the "Santa Fe Fit" ad that comes up on your video as you are about the outsized buildings in Star Trek. I was born and raised in Santa Fe, and I lived in San Francisco for many years. I'm not opposed to a futuristic view (when we're all dead and gone) of San Francisco, but the ridiculous holistic and spiritual view of Santa Fe TODAY offends me deeply.
michellestmarie 2 years ago
It's FICTION! Plus, it COULD happen! It's 300 years in the future.
michellestmarie 2 years ago 4
And yes, I realize I just mixed pessimism and optimism in the same comment. It's not a contradiction -- we'll have rubber buildings, but ninety percent of the population won't be able to read. (And among those who can, they'll choose stuff that makes Dan Brown look like Dostoyevsky.)
frankbooth64 2 years ago
What about all that crap they're building in the Rincon/South Beach area?
By the time this takes place, no one will have any sense of taste or aesthetics, so no one will care. (See Idiocracy.) You can't get people to watch black and white movies, and Paris Hilton is famous. We're headed for a Wall-E future.
Besides, the buildings in 2250 will probably be suspended by floating anti-gravity doohickeys and be made of rubberized steel. Earthquakes will be fun.
frankbooth64 2 years ago
i've analyzed that seen that scene. i'm pretty sure you are comparing the wrong location, it is not the bay bridge you are looking at. it's the GG bridge and marina (note the restored crissy field). star fleet academy is based in the presido. you make a good point about human scale design.
suenosf 2 years ago
Is this for real, meaning... harping on a movie skyline? In the words of William Shatner: "Have you ever kissed a girl?!?". C'mon.. 300 years from now. No one will know what anything will be like. IT'S A MOVIE.
fkndave 2 years ago 3
Sorry about the shitstorm of stupid comments from people looking for a venue to spew on.
You're absolutely right about San Francisco and its skyline (I'm a native). We would _never_ allow this sort of building to take place. Outsiders can't seem to understand that people in SF (as opposed to LA and other cities) really have a sense of our past, and try to preserve it.
One odd thing: 300 years in the future it's unlikely that the Bay Bridge will still exist, unless it's an exact re-creation.
bricology 2 years ago
well, the Coliseum in Rome, dated back to Julia Caesar,still stands today(although with only a shell)
eddielung31 2 years ago
ROFLMAO. Since when have SF "activists" prevented any development. Heck, the activists usually PAY for the development, by bond measures. The developers just have to grease a bond proposition with a suitably humanist title. Low-income housing...children's hospitals...civic space,,,heh. :p
The only thing preventing a massive SF skyline is the richter scale. But a civilization with warp drive can probably prevent earthquakes too. :D
superifico 2 years ago
"The only thing preventing a massive SF skyline is the richter scale."
Hardly true. At least as big of an impediment is the fact that all other infrastructure would have to be grown to match. For every 1% increase in population, we would have to build 1% more hospital facilities, provide 1% more public transit and parking, 1% more police and fire, repair roads 1% more often, and so on. We have neither the room nor the budget for doing that.
bricology 2 years ago
"We have neither the room nor the budget for doing that.,"
Room? There is plenty of air space above the current buildings. Budget? It grows primarily by increasing the tax base.
If anything, you seem to be arguing FOR the inevitable vertical expansion of San Francisco. :D
superifico 2 years ago
"Room? There is plenty of air space above the current buildings. Budget? It grows primarily by increasing the tax base."
You really don't grasp the reality of the situation. First, what you call "air space" is severely limited by height, setback and density restrictions. Second, the "tax base" doesn't follow linear growth; it requires huge investments in infrastructure, such as adding water and sewage trunks, power substations, fire stations, etc. NONE of that can come AFTER building big.
bricology 2 years ago
Oh, and my bona fides: I was trained as an architect, and I worked for one of the biggest construction firms in the Bay Area, on a number of high-rise projects in SF in the '90s and early '00s. Part of my job entailed working with the Planning Commission, Permits and other agencies.
Also, even a relatively modest high-rise like Rincon required concessions from the developer, big investments in infrastructure and years of back and forth with the City.
It's MUCH harder than you think.
bricology 2 years ago
What the fuck. i lived here all my life and i definitely think that would happen in 300 years. They have fuckin spaceships and shit and theyre flying at like 10000000 miles per hour or however fast fuckin warp speed is, and you dont think there are gonna be buildings that tall? and i really dont think anyone in the city would have any choice over what other people do with their property, even if anyone did care.
caudice 2 years ago
I have to say, that I disagree wholeheartedly. While you are correct in your statements regarding current conditions including traditionalist ideologies, we are talking about 2 centuries down the road. We are also talking about a world population of 6,706,993,152 as of July 2008 which is projected to double in the next 50 years alone. Is it really so unrealistic then to imagine SF, in an effort to maintain its environment (not character), increasing the size of its buildings to this extent?
marc11864 2 years ago
Excellent. I agree entirely with your viewpoint. I live in San Francisco and reacted in horror seeing these huge skyscrapers crowding out the SF skyline. Preposterous! And the vast majority of SF residents would fight to the end to prevent such a monstrosity. Again, this is sci/fi folks. And for whatever reason, it seems large skyscrapers seem to appear to the futurists of hollywood.
cutis1000 2 years ago
You are such a stupid asshole. Kill yourself.
StradTrumpeter 2 years ago
listen to this man
caudice 2 years ago
It's just a movie. Find a more useful hobby.
tms1977 2 years ago
lol good to see this is still the most bashed video on youtube
DoctorFrankNFurter 2 years ago
hahah 300 years from now you think theres going to be the same acitvists around?? san frans going to stay the exact same? are you crazy.
philmarlowe101 2 years ago
lol get a life dude. it's a movie
btcrepresent 2 years ago
Saw the trailer, bet it tanks and will be out on DVD just in time for Christmas.
Max9507 2 years ago
Maybe they can beam San Francisco up to Mars...the country(and the universe would be better off...
grabac9 2 years ago
is there a banna in the tailpipe in this movie?
windowcleaningdallas 2 years ago
Look everyone stop taking the piss, the point this man is making is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT, not only that but can't you TELL that this man knows what San Fran would look like in the future? It's obvious he does, because he jhas photos of San Fran NOW and THEN. This has always enabled people to see into the future. And don't, whatever you do, call it FRISCO.
DominicGudgeon 2 years ago
In all do respect, that photo you compared the "future San Francisco" to is completely outdated, If you look at San Francisco now in 2009, Construction is booming, and taller buildings are being built in the South of Market district, where they once were not allowed, also, a 1,200 foot building has been approved along with two other 1,000 foot buildings, San Francisco is growing fast again, and by that time, the building height limits are being eased.
juicyfruit415 2 years ago
In the time line, Earth went through a third World War after. 600 people million died. Major cities and governments had also been destroyed. I'm pretty sure the people that would have got their panties in a bunch of zoning laws...would be dead.
dv8hexagram 2 years ago 2
i dont buy it
parcheesily 3 years ago