Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube fan.
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Wow. Fog and haze over San Francisco. Who'd a thunk it? It's only, oh, what's the word? Oh, yes! LEGENDARY!! Spend a week there, and you'll see fog to rival London. Yeah, it creeps down the streets, the whole bit.
Wow. Fog and haze over San Francisco. Who'd a thunk it? It's only, oh, what's the word? Oh, yes! LEGENDARY!! Spend a week there, and you'll see fog to rival London. Yeah, it creeps down the streets, the whole bit.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
lol, it is hundreds of years in the future, of course buildings are going to change, in height and shape, with the materials and technology of the 23rd century they can probably build buildings REALLLLLLY high and be very stable
lol, it is hundreds of years in the future, of course buildings are going to change, in height and shape, with the materials and technology of the 23rd century they can probably build buildings REALLLLLLY high and be very stable
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
The area outlined in red roughly coincides with the location of Starfleet Academy, presuming it occupies the whole of the Presidio grounds. The Golden Gate Bridge is in the foreground, and Coit Tower is at the top of Telegraph Hill, which in this picture is at the leftmost corner of San Francisco, (yellow arrow) with the tall buildings of the Financial District to its right and the Oakland Bay Bridge behind it.
Oh! Okay I thought that was all the ''HEAVY'' pollution coming from china!
Extrapolating from our photograph above and the imagery provided by Abrams, relative to the Golden Gate and Coit Tower, where is the Academy supposed to be (I gather it is actually in the picture) relative to this photo?
The area outlined in red roughly coincides with the location of Starfleet Academy, presuming it occupies the whole of the Presidio grounds. The Golden Gate Bridge is in the foreground, and Coit Tower is at the top of Telegraph Hill, which in this picture is at the leftmost corner of San Francisco, (yellow arrow) with the tall buildings of the Financial District to its right and the Oakland Bay Bridge behind it.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
In trailer 2 the scene of the cadets running from the Academy (The CSUN Oviatt Library portion of it anyways) to view the Drill tearing up the Golden Gate area appears to place it on Treasure Island.
*Edit* Sorry, I meant the Big Game TV Spot.
*Edit 2* You know those days when you just can't get anything right....
In trailer 2 the scene of the cadets running from the Academy (The CSUN Oviatt Library portion of it anyways) to view the Drill tearing up the Golden Gate area appears to place it on Treasure Island.
*Edit* Sorry, I meant the Big Game TV Spot.
*Edit 2* You know those days when you just can't get anything right....
Last edited:
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Looking at the screen cap of Starfleet Academy and the view toward the Gold Gate Bridge I conclude 2 possibility's, 1) that the Academy resides on an artificially created island between Fishermans Wharf and Alcatraz Island or 2) it's located on treasure Island, the island connected to yerba buena island next to the oakland bay bridge.
personally i'd go with my number 1 option. An artificially created island for Starfleet Academy doesn't seem far fetched for the 23rd century and with option 2 it seems it would be too far away.
Looking at the screen cap of Starfleet Academy and the view toward the Gold Gate Bridge I conclude 2 possibility's, 1) that the Academy resides on an artificially created island between Fishermans Wharf and Alcatraz Island or 2) it's located on treasure Island, the island connected to yerba buena island next to the oakland bay bridge.
personally i'd go with my number 1 option. An artificially created island for Starfleet Academy doesn't seem far fetched for the 23rd century and with option 2 it seems it would be too far away.
Last edited:
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Considering that we have such islands today, I would agree with ya. Its also possible that the campus stretches across several locations
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
People of the future will desire urban living for the same reasons many people do today as several of you have already explained well.
As an urban planner myself I believe that given Gene Roddenberry's view of the future and what we have learned from Trek society I dont think this vision of San Francisco is that far fetched, if anything its the most detailed and realistic we have seen in all of Star Trek.
A utopian future in my view as an urban planner will have denser taller urban environments AND more rural environments. What we will have less of in a utopian future is suburbs or more accuratly SUBURBAN SPRAWL as we know it today. Someone awhile back described it earlier, the idea that you have to have a car and drive everywhere to do anything as is the case in countless suburban landscapes across the United States of today. In the 23rd Century and beyond for instance we shouldnt have massive Wal-Mart and shopping mall parking lots.
Commercial areas of the future will be one of two things; either vertical shopping malls in massive arcology skyscrapers or preserved small town main street or city neighborhood street front retail. We saw something similar to this in the Star Trek: Voyager episode Non Sequitor where the streets of San Francisco were shown to be pedestrianized and old buildings have been preserved. There were a few cases in Star Trek: Enterprise that showed this as well. So even in San Francisco itself there would be variety. Some of the lower rise sections would be preserved as "old towns" as we saw in Non Sequitor but out of necessity being the capital of the Federation San Francisco would have to built massive skyscrapers otherwise there would be a housing shortage. The economics of the Star Trek future we know is quite different from out contemporary society and unlike today where NIMBY's would oppose skyscraper construction for selfish economic reasons such as keeping housing prices high and thus many people have to commute long distances to the city in this future everyone who wants to live in San Francisco would be able to do so comfortably.
Of course not everyone would want to live in cities, there would be some people who would want to live in rural areas. In terms of the skyscrapers in Iowa in the new movie, well I explained that in another post, in short its probably housing for workers of the Riverside Shipyards, they were built so that the old town of Riverside is not overcome with sprawl and thus the new housing was built up and thats why Kirk has so much preserved open fields to drive his car or bike around in
. So skyscrapers can actually preserve open space. Sure it means that the immediate footprint of the buildings are completly built over but its much better than moderate density spread across a much larger area.
People of the future will desire urban living for the same reasons many people do today as several of you have already explained well.
As an urban planner myself I believe that given Gene Roddenberry's view of the future and what we have learned from Trek society I dont think this vision of San Francisco is that far fetched, if anything its the most detailed and realistic we have seen in all of Star Trek.
A utopian future in my view as an urban planner will have denser taller urban environments AND more rural environments. What we will have less of in a utopian future is suburbs or more accuratly SUBURBAN SPRAWL as we know it today. Someone awhile back described it earlier, the idea that you have to have a car and drive everywhere to do anything as is the case in countless suburban landscapes across the United States of today. In the 23rd Century and beyond for instance we shouldnt have massive Wal-Mart and shopping mall parking lots.
Commercial areas of the future will be one of two things; either vertical shopping malls in massive arcology skyscrapers or preserved small town main street or city neighborhood street front retail. We saw something similar to this in the Star Trek: Voyager episode Non Sequitor where the streets of San Francisco were shown to be pedestrianized and old buildings have been preserved. There were a few cases in Star Trek: Enterprise that showed this as well. So even in San Francisco itself there would be variety. Some of the lower rise sections would be preserved as "old towns" as we saw in Non Sequitor but out of necessity being the capital of the Federation San Francisco would have to built massive skyscrapers otherwise there would be a housing shortage. The economics of the Star Trek future we know is quite different from out contemporary society and unlike today where NIMBY's would oppose skyscraper construction for selfish economic reasons such as keeping housing prices high and thus many people have to commute long distances to the city in this future everyone who wants to live in San Francisco would be able to do so comfortably.
Of course not everyone would want to live in cities, there would be some people who would want to live in rural areas. In terms of the skyscrapers in Iowa in the new movie, well I explained that in another post, in short its probably housing for workers of the Riverside Shipyards, they were built so that the old town of Riverside is not overcome with sprawl and thus the new housing was built up and thats why Kirk has so much preserved open fields to drive his car or bike around in
. So skyscrapers can actually preserve open space. Sure it means that the immediate footprint of the buildings are completly built over but its much better than moderate density spread across a much larger area.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
The New Thread feature is very useful...
The New Thread feature is very useful...
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
But in this case, not necessary. Chicago's comments were directly related to the subject of this thread, so there was no reason to start a new one. It makes no difference whether this thread was nine months old, or nine years for that matter.The New Thread feature is very useful...
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Well, nine years might be a bit extreme (not to mention highly unlikely) but the post in question is relevant to/in response to the topic and has substance to it, so I don't see any problem.But in this case, not necessary. Chicago's comments were directly related to the subject of this thread, so there was no reason to start a new one. It makes no difference whether this thread was nine months old, or nine years for that matter.The New Thread feature is very useful...
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Hey, if you're willing to dig that far back for relevance, more power to you...
Hey, if you're willing to dig that far back for relevance, more power to you...
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
World War 3 destoried most of the major populated area throughout the world. I would assume that also means the west coast would be also mostly gone. So going off of that idea I can easily understand that using advancements in building techniques San Fran would be built bigger and better than it's 300 years old predicessors
World War 3 destoried most of the major populated area throughout the world. I would assume that also means the west coast would be also mostly gone. So going off of that idea I can easily understand that using advancements in building techniques San Fran would be built bigger and better than it's 300 years old predicessors
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Douchebaggery personified.
Joe, underlined
Douchebaggery personified.
Joe, underlined
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
What's next?? A youtube video complaining that buildings from 300 years ago are too short?
What's next?? A youtube video complaining that buildings from 300 years ago are too short?
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
Star Trek's depiction of San Francisco has always been off-kilter.
Why are there skyscrapers on Pacific Heights? Why does the Presidio have small redwood saplings instead of centuries-old Monterey pine, cypress and eucaplytus? Why can't Starfleet decide whether its headquarters are on China Beach (and how could there be enough room?) or Fort Baker (which is also pretty small amount of space for the hq of a galaxy-spanning fleet)? Did they demolish Lucasfilm's world headquarters to build Starfleet Academy? (oh the delightful irony, I certainly hope so!)
Oh cmon, it's obviously tonge in cheek!
Star Trek's depiction of San Francisco has always been off-kilter.
Why are there skyscrapers on Pacific Heights? Why does the Presidio have small redwood saplings instead of centuries-old Monterey pine, cypress and eucaplytus? Why can't Starfleet decide whether its headquarters are on China Beach (and how could there be enough room?) or Fort Baker (which is also pretty small amount of space for the hq of a galaxy-spanning fleet)? Did they demolish Lucasfilm's world headquarters to build Starfleet Academy? (oh the delightful irony, I certainly hope so!)Oh cmon, it's obviously tonge in cheek!
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
(click on image to embiggen)
In the image above, you can see the Palace of Fine Arts dome, just a little to the right of center, and just to the right (west) of that, two long buildings sitting side by side (easier to make out in this image.) In shape, those two buildings look very similar to one we saw in the movie from the inside, thus I suspect that the site occupied today by the Lucasfilm campus is in the same spot as Starfleet Academy's shuttleport hangars.
(click on image to embiggen)
In the image above, you can see the Palace of Fine Arts dome, just a little to the right of center, and just to the right (west) of that, two long buildings sitting side by side (easier to make out in this image.) In shape, those two buildings look very similar to one we saw in the movie from the inside, thus I suspect that the site occupied today by the Lucasfilm campus is in the same spot as Starfleet Academy's shuttleport hangars.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
How is that guy a douchebag? He was far less insulting than many of the people in this thread.
I went into the clip thinking okay here's gonna be someone I agree with messing it up by being a real ass, or going too far Nope.
San Fran did bother me a little because I was hoping this movie, with all the hubbub made about how it was changing things, would go back to the really great forward-thinking work done for TMP. Alas it was not to be, but I take some solace in that the JJ-San Fran wasn't grim BladeRunner sprawl but airy bright clean JJ sprawl.
How is that guy a douchebag? He was far less insulting than many of the people in this thread.
I went into the clip thinking okay here's gonna be someone I agree with messing it up by being a real ass, or going too far Nope.
San Fran did bother me a little because I was hoping this movie, with all the hubbub made about how it was changing things, would go back to the really great forward-thinking work done for TMP. Alas it was not to be, but I take some solace in that the JJ-San Fran wasn't grim BladeRunner sprawl but airy bright clean JJ sprawl.
Re: Trailer got SanFrancisco buildings too tall according to YouTube f
* (not "San Fran", please -- I think that may possibly be even worse than the execrable "Frisco")
And, far more often than not, so is Shatmandu, as you may have noticed.
He was merely someone overreacting slightly on the basis of a questionable premise -- suitable for a bit of mild ridicule, and that's about all.
I'm not sure that the San Francisco* depicted in the latest movie was entirely inconsistent with the one shown in TMP, but the foggy conditions of Abrams' take were a good deal more statistically likely for SF than TMP's clear, sunny conditions.
* (not "San Fran", please -- I think that may possibly be even worse than the execrable "Frisco")
Similar threads
- Locked
