Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

sutrotower.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#21

Post by kmtrowbr »

It is absolutely the #1 most visible landmark in the city.

When you are hiking far the north up the coast -- say, Mt. Wittenberg -- you can just barely make out the city to the south ... it's so tiny ... and you can distinctly see "the big bug." Or, from Mt. Diablo, or from Russian Ridge down on the peninsula. This is in addition to being visible from practically everywhere within the city itself.

It's an amazing landmark and, I've come to be quite fond of it.

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#23

Post by 001sky »

danbmil99 wrote: post #18
Cr3w wrote: post #4

Sorry, but I don't like it. I think it looks ugly and you can see it practically from everywhere. I never liked it...

> you can see it practically from everywhere Kind of the point for a comms tower, no?

to be heard, not seen

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#25

Post by whoopdedo »

"...residents at this time focused on their belief that the installation of digital antennas was not allowed per the conditional use permit originally granted. Beyond seismic safety, the other chief complaint from residents involved possible electromagnetic effects on humans."

Never mind that DTV is broadcast on the same UHF band that's been in use for decades. Or that because of the increased resiliency to noise a digital signal can be transmitted at a lower power level while covering the same area. No, let's just ignore scientific fact and whip up a bunch of anti-radiation hysteria.

But I was amused that the old mansion rather than cut down a tree built the front steps around the trunk.

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#27

Post by gkanapathy »

ccvannorman wrote: post #7

is THAT what it's called! I have a 1/30th scale model in our home. My grandfather calls it the Devil's Pitchfork :P

A 1/30th scale model would still be over 30 feet tall. (The real tower is nearly 1000 feet/300 meters tall.) Are you sure you don't mean, say, 1/300th scale?

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#28

Post by aceperry »

Cr3w wrote: post #4

Sorry, but I don't like it. I think it looks ugly and you can see it practically from everywhere. I never liked it...

I grew up with Sutro Tower as part of the SF skyline so I don't really hate it. As the title states, I don't appreciate it as much as the rest of SF's landmarks because it's so different from everything else such as Coit Tower, the Transamerica pyramid, or even the Golden Gate Bridge. It looks ugly compared to modern structures like the new bay bridge. Compared to the rest of SF's landmarks, Sutro Tower doesn't seem to fit in.

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#29

Post by mtviewdave »

nevir wrote: post #9
ccvannorman wrote: post #7

is THAT what it's called! I have a 1/30th scale model in our home. My grandfather calls it the Devil's Pitchfork :P

My friends all call it The Claw :P

I've heard it referred to as the box that the Transamerica Pyramid came in (both were built at around the same time).

Re: Sutro Tower: San Francisco's least appreciated landmark

#30

Post by britta »

nevir wrote: post #9
ccvannorman wrote: post #7

is THAT what it's called! I have a 1/30th scale model in our home. My grandfather calls it the Devil's Pitchfork :P

My friends all call it The Claw :P

There are some people who call it the Space Claw: https://www.flickr.com/people/spaceclaw
Post reply on HN