Why would they write the article and then halfway down acknowledge the tower isn’t complete yet. Makes it seem like they should have waited before putting something out. Anyway, it will look way different once that crown lighting is complete. I look forward to the 4(?) variations.
Testing…testing…
I can’t believe there’s 4 different modes of lighting. Look forward to that constellation and lighthouse looking one.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfIATZiBsWa/?taken-by=sirgious
Photocred: @sirgious on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfNF_vohhqi/?taken-by=robynkaufmansfrealtor
Photocred: @robynkaufmansfrealtor on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfH2O2cHylO/?taken-by=jelly_booms
Photocred: @jelly_booms on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgUlSU4goUY/?taken-by=brandontaoka
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgEaSXGA8tH/?taken-by=brandontaoka
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgHXbhpAKQ0/?taken-by=brandontaoka
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgPrh4Gg1aF/?taken-by=brandontaoka
Photocred for all pics: @brandontaoka on Instagram
I think this one is finally lit.
A video of one of the lighting displays. Looks like this one has scenes from the day. Although the beginning confused me… I thought they were strippers before I realized they were ballerinas or dancers.
Some more videos.
Looking forward to the other kinds of displays.
Ok I know this tower was capable of so many different lightings but this one is off the hook:
Sauron lighting for Halloween! The flames and the eye moves.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bpn1XPxg5-G/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=fyggl07dtnvt
THEY ACTUALLY DID IT. 
not bad! haha
Has some really great shots of the tower
The final contribution to our SFYIMBY countdown of the Bay Area’s tallest towers built or proposed.
The Transbay area pre-construction, image courtesy Munden Fry Landscape Associates
Transbay Design for Development master plan, illustration by SOM
In the beginning I was skeptical about how the tower would be received but it has cemented itself as the centerpiece of the San Francisco skyline. It’s always fun to notice the building appearing from various angles and blocks. What’s funny is that this building is on par to the height of 3 world trade [1079 ft]
Not really a focus on the building but I thought it was interesting enough
Not really about this tower in particular, but San Fran itself.
Simply due to density and the large amount of high-tech Fortune 500 companies SF should be easily the second largest skyline in the US, only behind NYC.
And I strongly feel this would be the case if not for the almost fanatical NIMBYism of the Nimby capital of the US.
Agreeed. There’s a fascinating history there that I only know a slice of, but looking at the Bay Area’s urban fabric, it is still based on the Spanish missionary and Mexican ranchero system which pre-disposed the whole region for suburbanization. Just for some visual evidence, a good amount of our single-family homes and new apartments are built in the Spanish Revival Style (see here), and most of our single-family developments come from sold-off tracts of land from ranches, so the modern urban fabric reinforced the boundaries and landscape of those massive ranches.
On top of that, SF has a long history of being a boom or bust city, and the earthquakes and lack of readily accessible bedrock I bet gave a lot of companies some reticence to build as tall as they could in NYC and Chicago.
Once developers and engineers got the confidence to build over 400 feet tall in SF either for economic or practical reasons, it was the 1960s that was admittedly not the most accessible period for architecture and public outreach. I find the book “Designing San Francisco” to be the best narrative of how that NIMBYism blossomed here in that period. It gives a few specific projects which galvanized public outrage, including the Fontana Apartment towers, the proposed demolition of the Ghirardelli Factory, and of course the prospect of a growing high-rise central business district that could resemble Manhattan, hence the term ‘Manhattanization.’
Looking further south to San Jose, I’ve heard people speculate how that city might have been developed if it grew to economic prominence in the late 1800s or early 1900s rather than in the post-war era. It would likely have built many iconic skyscrapers, a great transit network, so many of the important foundational bones of a healthy urban center that it lacks. Sad to think about 
Regardless of the skyline though, more neighborhoods of San Francisco still maintain dense walkability with a diversity of shops and parks connected with buses and light rail that make a good city. it’s only a shame there’s not more housing to allow more people to enjoy and benefit from that.
I hope some of you can chime in with some nuance, corrections, or additional flavor to this history! Ive tried to do as much reading as possible on this
True unfortunately for SF and other west coast cities despite their large populations, wealth and density their geography has kinda screwed them. That soil makeup plus the bad earthquakes do put a damper on skyscraper ambitions.
But maybe it’s for the best they didn’t try to build skyscrapers before we had earthquake proof tech for them, those big earthquake disasters could have been a lot worse.
SF does have great walkability though, that’s always good to see. I’d say bikeability as well but unless you have an electric bike those hills would be nasty.
