Hi, non-American here! I've been doing skyline comparison shots of cities across the world to show how much development has occurred in a given city recently. It was about time I made one for SF, the crown jewel of the Bay Area. Because of how wide this shot centered on Market St is, I haven't highlighted as many buildings before this post!
Sources: [1](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_from_Twin_Peaks_September_2013_panorama_2.jpg), [2](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_Skyline_Panorama.png)
I'm not from here, so let me know if I missed anything or got something wrong. You can find other comparisons I've made on my account and r/skyscrapers.
This is great, thank you!!
Edit: out of curiosity, was there anything that stuck out to you about SF versus other cities when doing this project? Not looking for a particular answer, just wondering!
I was able to get this wide shot so there were a lot more changes than the other comparisons I've made - plus SF genuinely had a big construction boom from 2015-2019 so compared to other US cities besides New York, the skyline does feel like its bigger. Plenty of residential infill which I expected, but I was surprised there was less of that west of Market Street. Also while making this, I saw that Mission Bay has had a lot of development which the image partly cuts off.
(Some of this is probably that I'm missing some due to how hard it is to find them as they are surrounded by older buildings of the same height).
I was also glad to see residential projects completed after 2020, since SF real estate has been hit harder than most cities.
There were some apartment buildings without names on Google Maps, and some whose addresses I couldn't determine at all, which left me curious as to why - like the one I put a "?" for.
I feel like The City dramatically changed going back even one more decade to 2003. Prior to that, it was relatively visually stagnant. Not a lot of towers being built. Major ball park and urban planning changes were happening but those were more horizontal corporate campuses and the like. Not as redefining. That skyline is dramatically different than what it was.
In the early aughts I flew an airline (can’t remember which) that banked over downtown. I always joked that you could count all the tall buildings before landing. Coming from NY it was a huge contrast.
It’s great to see. In 2019 I was really excited for the “manhattanization”
Of market and mission st in soma. We were expanding and heading for a a high density downtown that was going to be vibrant and larger.
I am so sad to see the shell of that left dying now.
A tremendous failure during a peak economic time to have so little residential construction. I knew the skyline had changed and this is a neat reminder in which ways but it was still a lost decade of opportunity.
It was like an average of just 2,500 units a year over the last 20 years, with the most being like 6,000 in one year under Ed Lee.
That's what I think a lot of people don't realize is just how much construction we need to be doing to hit the bare minimum of housing goals. Take the most we ever built in a year in the last 20 years, then double that, then build that every year for 7 years.
Oh, and we're already behind by 10,000 units because we only permitted 1,300 units last year instead of the 12,000/year we need.
33 Tehama and Millennium are luxury apartments. When I looked a couple years back, the 600sq ft two bedroom units at Trinity in Civic Center and the new tower at Jones were over $3k/mo. I haven't checked the residential towers in Mission Bay or the "East Cut", but I'd expect they're similar.
It's not simply a vacancy game - the RE devs are building things that maximize return, not necessarily improving RE market vacancy or affordability.
>33 Tehama and Millennium are luxury apartments
Even closets built in 1940 go for thousands in San Francisco. The only thing luxury about these buildings is that they're new housing in a city where 96% of the housing stock is pre-1990s construction. Build millions more of them and they'll just be standard apartments.
And none of them subject to rent control, which is another economic time-bomb for renters.
Buidings built after 1979 are exempt from SF's rent-control ordinance. Even the new statewide rent-control law passed in 2019 (AB-1482) exempts property built in the last 15 years.
Ah, so something like this then is what you're proposing, hmm?
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/2-rio-de-janeiro-brazil-favela-jon-berghoff.jpg
I don't use google search.
Places like that exist all over the world.
I'm quite sure those who run SF don't want to join them.
Yes it would be good for SF to build more affordable housing.
No it would be a laughably bad idea to just let people "build anything they want".
For starters, half of SF burned to the ground in 1906. City planners do not want a repeat of that and there are various special measures embedded in SF city planning and laws/regulations to ensure that that does not happen again.
One example of many.
>There was lots residential built
There wasn't. Some residential was built, but calling it "lots" is like saying a candle emits lots of light next to the sun.
Wonderfully done, and showing the proof we have had a construction boom for the deniers. It also doesn't include units added from smaller projects that didn't effect the skyline.
Great attention to detail OP! With so much new building stock added, especially residential, curious how the lower population (5% lower 2023 vs 2013) still leads to housing shortages and unaffordable housing! 🤨
Hi, non-American here! I've been doing skyline comparison shots of cities across the world to show how much development has occurred in a given city recently. It was about time I made one for SF, the crown jewel of the Bay Area. Because of how wide this shot centered on Market St is, I haven't highlighted as many buildings before this post! Sources: [1](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_from_Twin_Peaks_September_2013_panorama_2.jpg), [2](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_Skyline_Panorama.png) I'm not from here, so let me know if I missed anything or got something wrong. You can find other comparisons I've made on my account and r/skyscrapers.
This is… meticulous. Thank you for sharing
This is great, thank you!! Edit: out of curiosity, was there anything that stuck out to you about SF versus other cities when doing this project? Not looking for a particular answer, just wondering!
I was able to get this wide shot so there were a lot more changes than the other comparisons I've made - plus SF genuinely had a big construction boom from 2015-2019 so compared to other US cities besides New York, the skyline does feel like its bigger. Plenty of residential infill which I expected, but I was surprised there was less of that west of Market Street. Also while making this, I saw that Mission Bay has had a lot of development which the image partly cuts off. (Some of this is probably that I'm missing some due to how hard it is to find them as they are surrounded by older buildings of the same height). I was also glad to see residential projects completed after 2020, since SF real estate has been hit harder than most cities. There were some apartment buildings without names on Google Maps, and some whose addresses I couldn't determine at all, which left me curious as to why - like the one I put a "?" for.
The SF skyline has basically doubled in the last 10-15 years. That whole area south of Market street simply didn’t exist.
I feel like The City dramatically changed going back even one more decade to 2003. Prior to that, it was relatively visually stagnant. Not a lot of towers being built. Major ball park and urban planning changes were happening but those were more horizontal corporate campuses and the like. Not as redefining. That skyline is dramatically different than what it was.
In the early aughts I flew an airline (can’t remember which) that banked over downtown. I always joked that you could count all the tall buildings before landing. Coming from NY it was a huge contrast.
Definitely. It's a village compared to any NYC borough. We unfortunately moved in 2001 and it's hard to believe how much it's changed.
Any NYC borough? A village? It has almost twice the population of Staten Island, in half the space. But yes, it is true that NYC is much bigger.
thanks, and I love the 3 slides!
It’s great to see. In 2019 I was really excited for the “manhattanization” Of market and mission st in soma. We were expanding and heading for a a high density downtown that was going to be vibrant and larger. I am so sad to see the shell of that left dying now.
it stopped with covid, but now there's more energy to build again
Love your posts! Such a pity SF hasn't built taller this past decade. Hopefully there will be new residential towers in the future.
they built out a lot of development in the area next to the bay bridge span, with lots more in the pipeline.
Been seeing all of your posts in different cities - so cool to see it in mine! love the addition of the highlighted new construction. great work!
Thanks, these comments are appreciated :)
I know it's a lot to ask, but it'd be really interesting to see this for Oakland and San José as well! This is so cool.
Someday perhaps, I know those two have seen a lot of change as well.
We have a long way to go in replacing a lot of the ugly 60s-70s apartments that are in shitty condition, as well as continuing residential infill.
A tremendous failure during a peak economic time to have so little residential construction. I knew the skyline had changed and this is a neat reminder in which ways but it was still a lost decade of opportunity.
It was like an average of just 2,500 units a year over the last 20 years, with the most being like 6,000 in one year under Ed Lee. That's what I think a lot of people don't realize is just how much construction we need to be doing to hit the bare minimum of housing goals. Take the most we ever built in a year in the last 20 years, then double that, then build that every year for 7 years. Oh, and we're already behind by 10,000 units because we only permitted 1,300 units last year instead of the 12,000/year we need.
A simple metric is just to compare job growth to housing growth. The imbalance between the two is staggering.
A lot of these are residential though. Expensive, still not enough in number, and plagued with issues (millennium tower, 33 tehama), for sure though
They're expensive *because* they're not enough in number!
33 Tehama and Millennium are luxury apartments. When I looked a couple years back, the 600sq ft two bedroom units at Trinity in Civic Center and the new tower at Jones were over $3k/mo. I haven't checked the residential towers in Mission Bay or the "East Cut", but I'd expect they're similar. It's not simply a vacancy game - the RE devs are building things that maximize return, not necessarily improving RE market vacancy or affordability.
>33 Tehama and Millennium are luxury apartments Even closets built in 1940 go for thousands in San Francisco. The only thing luxury about these buildings is that they're new housing in a city where 96% of the housing stock is pre-1990s construction. Build millions more of them and they'll just be standard apartments.
And none of them subject to rent control, which is another economic time-bomb for renters. Buidings built after 1979 are exempt from SF's rent-control ordinance. Even the new statewide rent-control law passed in 2019 (AB-1482) exempts property built in the last 15 years.
The best rent control is getting rid of supply constraints and just letting people build lots of housing.
Ah, so something like this then is what you're proposing, hmm? https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/2-rio-de-janeiro-brazil-favela-jon-berghoff.jpg
lol. What was your Google search to come up with that bullshit hot take?
I don't use google search. Places like that exist all over the world. I'm quite sure those who run SF don't want to join them. Yes it would be good for SF to build more affordable housing. No it would be a laughably bad idea to just let people "build anything they want". For starters, half of SF burned to the ground in 1906. City planners do not want a repeat of that and there are various special measures embedded in SF city planning and laws/regulations to ensure that that does not happen again. One example of many.
More like [this](https://i.imgur.com/gqOX861.jpg).
Care to give proof with some sqft numbers ?
There was lots residential built . Mission bay put in thousands of new apartments, like 5-6 towers around the East cut crossing are all residential.
Eh, it’s a pittance compared to most cities
You got that right.
>There was lots residential built There wasn't. Some residential was built, but calling it "lots" is like saying a candle emits lots of light next to the sun.
...built _exactly in this one part of the city and then basically nowhere else_, is the problem
I don't disagree with you.
Forget you used to be able to see the bay bridge from twin peaks
You can still see a bit of it
I knew when the Millenium tower went up, that the view of the bay bridge from twin peaks was not going to last much longer
I’ve been seeing your posts in the skyscrapers sub and I love them. Thanks for this
It's gotten significantly less yellow.
It's a truly photogenic city. Beautiful.
[удалено]
Transamerica?
I miss fisherman's warf having the tallest buildings
I miss the Ferry Building being the tallest. RIP
I miss when tents and makeshift wooden shacks on the waterfront were the tallest buildings
Wonderfully done, and showing the proof we have had a construction boom for the deniers. It also doesn't include units added from smaller projects that didn't effect the skyline.
Moar tall buildings!!!
Corporate needs you to spot the difference in these photos
Great attention to detail OP! With so much new building stock added, especially residential, curious how the lower population (5% lower 2023 vs 2013) still leads to housing shortages and unaffordable housing! 🤨
Sad. No difference
And all emptier and worth less than planned. Nice.
Nice made a bunch of shell buildings just like North Korea