The San Francisco Paradox

[Kris]

The San Francisco Paradox
When good cities have bad architecture.
By Witold Rybczynski
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, at 2:12 PM ET

Ours is the age of international "starchitects" and "signature buildings," epitomized by the if-you-build-it-they-will-come success of Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum at Bilbao, Spain, which revitalized the city's economy. By contrast, San Francisco epitomizes a different, older model: a thriving city with a prosperous commercial past (in this case a port) that gradually became what urban economists call a "glamour city." Glamour cities are centers of international business (New York), political power (Washington, D.C.), and the New Economy (Boston). They usually have a 19th-century infrastructure of museums, concert halls, and well-preserved residential architecture, and they are where the wealthy, the well-educated, and the ambitious want to live. High-end demand, in turn, produces real estate values that—even in the current slump—are an order of magnitude greater than elsewhere. These cities are vibrant, livable, prosperous, and well-managed. San Francisco, on top of all this, has a temperate climate and a great natural setting. What it doesn't have is great architecture.

It's hard to know exactly why some cities develop an architectural sensibility. Clearly, having a local star serves to raise the level of public consciousness of good architecture. In the 1960s, Mies van der Rohe in Chicago and Louis Kahn in Philadelphia attracted and trained a generation of talented young architects from around the world, many of whom stayed to open their own offices. A strong architectural tradition helps, too. Chicago got a running start with Louis Sullivan and Daniel Burnham at the end of the 19th century, Boston had H.H. Richardson, and during the Gilded Age New York City had McKim, Mead & White. The Bay Area had Bernard Maybeck, an original talent, whose blend of Arts and Crafts and Classicism might have been the beginning of a regional movement, except it was eclipsed by Modernism, and withered on the vine. (Maybeck's career was basically over by 1930, although he did not die until 1957.)

The West Coast suffered by comparison to the East Coast, though there have been at least two significant architectural movements in Los Angeles in recent years: the first in the 1960s, represented by Richard Neutra, Charles and Ray Eames, and Craig Ellwood, and the second today, dominated by Frank Gehry, who moved to the city when he was 17 and has become L.A.'s—and the country's—leading architect. San Francisco, on the other hand, has not managed to produce any major homegrown talent since Maybeck. In the 1960s, Charles Moore built a series of houses in the Bay Area in a casual, rustic style. His masterpiece was Sea Ranch, a barnlike complex of houses on the Pacific shore, designed in 1967 with his partnership, Moore, Lyndon, Turnbull, and Whitaker. But the peripatetic Moore did not stay long. In any case his buildings were suburban or rural and had little effect on the city itself, which plodded on. You know that the bar hasn't been set very high when the most exciting downtown interior space is still John C. Portman's theatrical Hyatt Regency hotel atrium, built in 1973.

Architecturally speaking, San Francisco has been like a beautiful, rich woman who has never developed an interest in cooking and serves TV dinners to her family, then occasionally—somewhat frantically—hires caterers whenever she has company for dinner. OK, it's an imperfect analogy, but you get the idea. The question, now, is what the city should do. Perhaps in recognition of its architectural lack, in recent years San Francisco has been importing talent: Mario Botta (San Francisco Museum of Modern Art); Pei, Cobb, Freed (main library); Fumihiko Maki (Yerba Buena Center for the Arts); and the Polshek Partnership (Yerba Buena Center for the Arts Theater). These buildings are not unqualified successes. The art museum, eagerly awaited as Botta's first U.S. commission, is self-conscious and out of scale; the library is a tepid exercise in Postmodernism (and has been severely criticized for its functional shortcomings). With the exception of Herzog & de Meuron's recently completed de Young Museum—which will be the subject of a future Slate slide show—San Francisco has not inspired its hired guns to do their best work.

It may be San Francisco's spectacular setting that is the problem (Rio de Janeiro, another beautiful bay city, has likewise failed to produce striking architecture). Of course, San Francisco does have one strong tradition: its thousands of remarkable houses. Quirky, uninhibited, individualistic, full of character, often thumbing their noses at architectural convention, the so-called painted ladies line the hilly streets in residential neighborhoods throughout the city. This domestic tradition has produced interesting contemporary urban housing, but the very qualities that make residential buildings attractive are ill-suited to large urban projects, which need a different sense of style. To return to my increasingly imperfect analogy, if only the beautiful, rich woman could find a way to turn these snacks into a main—home-cooked—course.

Witold Rybczynski is Slate's architecture critic.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2151655/

[lofter1]

The San Francisco Paradox
When good cities have bad architecture.

... Architecturally speaking, San Francisco has been like a beautiful, rich woman who has never developed an interest in cooking and serves TV dinners to her family, then occasionally—somewhat frantically—hires caterers whenever she has company for dinner. OK, it's an imperfect analogy, but you get the idea.

... To return to my increasingly imperfect analogy, if only the beautiful, rich woman could find a way to turn these snacks into a main—home-cooked—course.

Imperfect -- but vivid.

As a native San Franciscan I can say that this nail seems to have been hit squarely on the head.

Of course, in the case of SF, the woman in question could very likely turn out to be a cockette (http://thecockettes.org/) ...

You want "home-cooked"?

http://www.noehill.com/cockettes/photos/images/pristine_gatewood_small.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:showPicture('pristine_gatewood.jpg','pristinegate wood','600','594','The Cockettes<br>Pristine Condition<br>Photo © Charles Gatewood'))
Photo (http://www.noehill.com/cockettes/pristine.asp) © Charles Gatewood

Now that's ^^^ some good architecture !!!

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[Fahzee]

Imperfect -- but vivid.

As a native San Franciscan I can say that this nail seems to have been hit squarely on the head.



When this article was first posted on Slate the reaction from "the fray" was overwhelmingly pro-San Fran. Everyone had a favorite street, a favorite house, etc, that to them defined what made San Francisco "architecturally appealing".

I don't know why I was so surprised, but I was. over the last 5 years I've been fortunate to spent a large amount of time in San Fran, and although I certainly see the charm, I was definitely struck but the overall "blah-ness" everywhere.

I've been told that the city has some of the most restrictive zoning in the country - which may explain the tepid collection of buildings.
(I don't know if I can independently confirm this - any thoughts, lofter?)

[lofter1]

I didn't leave my heart in SF -- I just up and left ...

It's been 5+ years since I spent any time in the City (and moved away back in the ice age) so I can't really comment on the current state of things -- except to say that my memories are of SF in its funkier days.

[stache]

My own personal feeling is that they should have let the TransAmerica pyramid be taller, but zoning knocked it down. Instead they have a crew cut on Market St. of identical maximum zoned height buildings and no star, like the ESB here. That being said, they do have some attractive, finely detailed buildings downtown.

[ablarc]

Boston has the same problem.

[investordude]

Although this article is a criticism, I'm still vaguely hopeful SF gets some taller buildings on its skylines out of these mega-proposals.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/23/TOWERS.TMP

[Kris]

High times for San Fran skyline
Posted 1/2/2007 11:05 PM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO — This city's skyline, with its distinctive Transamerica Pyramid and pastel-colored buildings, juts out on a peninsula like a surfer hanging 10. From above the Golden Gate Bridge, sunset views can be postcard spectacular.

But a growing number of city officials and planners believe the skyline's form, a product of decades-old height restrictions, needs a shot of adrenaline.

"What you're struck by is how flat our skyline is," says Dean Macris, the city's planning director. "So we think it could be visibly enhanced if we had some peaking."

By that, Macris means height, and more height is clearly on the horizon. Last month, developers submitted a proposal to build four connected towers, two of which would be 1,200 feet tall. Only two other buildings in the USA are taller: New York City's Empire State Building and Chicago's Sears Tower.

The shorter towers in the plan, at 900 feet, would be taller than any other building in the city, including the Pyramid and Bank of America Center.

Tall seems to be in vogue as cities try to make bold architectural statements and create density in tight spaces. Boston, an old city whose tallest building is 792 feet, is considering a 1,000-foot tower that would dominate its skyline.

The 1,362-foot Freedom Tower at Ground Zero in New York would surpass the Empire State Building. The Trump tower in Chicago, now under construction, would be shorter than the Sears Tower, currently the USA's tallest skyscraper.

Work is expected to begin this year on Chicago Spire on the Lake Michigan shore, which at 2,000 feet would be the new height king.

Residential space needed

In San Francisco, with its chronic housing shortage, more height downtown is seen as a way to add badly needed residential units. The four towers, designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano, would be built in the booming South of Market area across from a proposed $1 billion transit center, which itself would have a nearly 900-foot tower above a train station.

The eminent Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, who designed the 150-story Chicago Spire, is competing in an international competition for the transit-tower design. Piano, whose work includes the Pompidou Center in Paris and Atlanta's High Museum expansion, is designing the California Academy of Sciences' new home here in Golden Gate Park. He also designed Shard London Bridge, which when completed will be Britain's tallest structure.

Piano's four-towers plan first will undergo environmental review, then face at least two years of design review.

"If the wind is at our back the whole way, which it won't be, we'll be fortunate to start building in 2010," says developer Mark Solit. The proposal submitted Dec. 21 is more of a concept than a floor plan, he says. The buildings will contain a mix of residential, office and retail space, he says.

Engineering studies will determine whether the towers could withstand earthquakes, always a concern in one of the world's most seismically active regions. Macris doesn't see a problem.

"Seismic experts regard tall buildings as functioning very well" in earthquakes, because their foundations are built on deep pilings sunk in bedrock, he says.

Still, the towers are likely to attract critics. John King, urban design writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, called Piano's concept "provocative and elegant" but "too much of a good thing."

King wrote that the scheme is "too tall for the site and too tall as a precedent for what might follow nearby." Better, he wrote, "if scaled at more modest heights."

City planners are studying how height should be incorporated downtown and may not approve buildings as tall as those conceived by Piano, Macris says. But 1,200 feet hasn't been ruled out, he says.

"Tall should not be equated with either good or bad,

says Henry Urbach, curator of architecture and design at San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art. "The skyline in a city like San Francisco is never fixed once and for all. For a city to evolve, it needs to be willing to risk its skyline."

Thin is in

The towers would be skinny by the standards of skyscraper construction over the past 50 years. Tall and slender is an a urban-design trend that has taken hold in Europe and, most prominently in North America, in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Piano has compared his towers to a cluster of bamboo shoots, with different shoots growing to different heights. Picture a pipe organ, Macris says.

Slender buildings block less light on the street. They don't restrict views as blockier buildings do. Their impact on pedestrians and traffic is lessened. Outside light reaches more of the interior space. And they simply look nice.

"Slender in the sky is a great aesthetic advantage. We're very conscious of that," Macris says.

In the 1920s and 1930s, before air conditioning, many slender skyscrapers were built, particularly in New York and Chicago, because windows could be closer to the core of a building. "When air-conditioning technology improved after World War II, we got a lot of pretty thick building in the sky," Macris says. "We'd like to return to some of that slenderness."

Since Piano's concept was unveiled, there have been concerns over its similarity to the World Trade Center towers in New York that collapsed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Chris Daly, a San Francisco supervisor whose district includes South of Market, says Piano's towers are shaped differently and represent more of a "Chicago look," although from one vantage point they do appear to be similar, side-by-side towers.

"It's probably not a coincidence," Daly says. "Piano probably did it on purpose. He's always trying to make his mark."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-02-talltowers_x.htm

[lofter1]

5 teams submit design ideas to build tallest S.F. building

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Redevelopment%20Plan_large.JPG

San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/11/BAGBMNHBRO12.DTL)
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
January 11, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -- There's a crowded starting line in the race to win the right to build what could be San Francisco's tallest building.

Five teams met a 3 p.m. deadline today to enter what is billed as a "design and development competition" for the block now covered by the Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets. One will be selected to build a tower "that will redefine the city's skyline," -- a building that will also help pay for a new transit terminal serving buses, commuter trains and possibly high-speed rail service to Southern California.

This is the first round of a selection process (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=323) that will last until August. But the turnout shows that the idea of leaving a mark on the skyline of one of the world's best-known cities has a strong allure.

The teams include:

-- Sir Richard Rogers, an English lord whose designs include the Pompidou Center in Paris, would work with Forest City Enterprises -- co-developer of the Westfield San Francisco Centre that opened in September.

-- Another lord, Sir Norman Foster, is paired with The Related Cos. Foster's firm has designed some of the world's most distinctive towers and is working on a new tower at the site of the former World Trade Center.

-- Spanish architect-engineer Santiago Calatrava entered the competition with Boston Properties. Calatrava is best-known for bridges but also designed a 2,000-foot condominium tower scheduled to begin construction this year in Chicago. Boston Properties owns the Embarcadero Center office complex.

-- The development firm Hines is allied with Pelli Clarke Pelli. Cesar Pelli designed Petronas Towers in Malaysia -- the world's tallest tower for several years -- as well as 560 Mission in San Francisco. Hines has developed four towers in San Francisco.

-- San Francisco architecture firm Skidmore Owings Merrill, which submitted qualifications in a partnership with Rockefeller Group Development Corp., which is owned by Japan's Mitsubishi Estate Co.

"These are all heavy players," said Don Stastny, who is running the competition for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a government body created to make a new terminal happen. "It says a lot about the cachet that San Francisco has nationally and internationally."
The tallest tower now is San Francisco is the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid. However, city planners say the transit tower should be at least as tall, and there also has been a proposal for two slender 1,200-foot towers across the street.

© 2007 San Francisco Chronicle

***

TIMELINE (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=58)

Transbay Transit Center and Downtown Rail Extension Project Timeline

2012 -2019 Project Construction - Phase II, Downtown Rail Extension

2008 -2014 Project Construction - Phase I, Transit Center Building

2006 -2009 Architecture and Engineering Design

November 1, 2006 Design & Development Competition (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=323) Launched

June 2, 2006 TJPA Board Adopts Recommended Implementation Strategy (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/About/Item%2010_Implementation%20Resolution.pdf)

January 2006 TJPA becomes eligible Federal grant recipient

August 2005 The Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Extension Project receives $56.204 million in federal funding from the long-awaited Federal surface transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU).

June 21, 2005 Board of Supervisors adopts Transbay Redevelopment Plan. (http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=29078 #D4D)

[ablarc]

I can see them laboring hard ... gettin' ready to deliver a mouse.

[lofter1]

So optimistic ^^^ :p

Methinks SF really wants to step forward and make a mark with this one.

[ablarc]

^ Have you checked out the rendering?

[lofter1]

No renderings yet (that I know of) ... they just announced the 5 finalists today.

That image above is a couple of years old and from a gov't agency publication. There's been a lot of talk in SF since then of building something new and big on and around this site to bust open the skyline.

Here's the Vison/Mission (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/About/TJPA_Vision-Mission-Goals.pdf) of the "Transbay Joint Powers Authority" (as vague and general as it might be)

[ablarc]

There's been a lot of talk in SF since then of building something new and big ... to bust open the skyline.
New York could use some talk like that.

[lofter1]

More ...

Transbay authority to entertain design ideas for new transit tower

SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/26/BAGEFM036L1.DTL)
October 26, 2006

... "A lot of the comments we've heard from the public is that they want a world-class station and a world-class transit tower," said Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the authority. "Design quality is paramount."

The idea to push beyond the once-controversial Transamerica Pyramid and its 853-foot peak gained momentum in May, when city planning officials suggested zoning changes to allow three skyscrapers in the Transbay area that would generate revenue for the project ...

[pianoman11686]

New York could use some talk like that.

And specifically, Brooklyn.

[lofter1]

And this on a nearby but separate SF project ...

Famed architect in line to design new S.F. tower

San Francisco Business Times (http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/05/29/daily47.html?jst=s_cn_hl)
June 2, 2006
by J.K. Dineen and Emily Fancher

Superstar architect Renzo Piano has tentatively agreed to design an 850-foot tower at First and Mission streets, a significant coup for city planners as they build support for a denser, taller neighborhood around the Transbay Terminal.

The building would be constructed on a development site that has been quietly assembled by David Choo, the president of commercial mortgage lender California Mortgage and Realty. In the past three months, Choo's company has paid about $50 million for three buildings on the northwest corner of Mission and First streets.

[lofter1]

A bit more ...

Transbay Terminal, neighborhood on the rise

Plan in place for big transit hub, offices and housing

San Francisco Business Times (http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/06/26/focus11.html?jst=s_cn_hl)
June 23, 2006
by Emily Fancher (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?t=sanfrancisco&am=sanfrancisco&q=%22Emily%20Fancher%22&f=byline&am=120_days&r=20)

Design competition

One of those towers will be a 1,000-foot iconic skyscraper built by an architect and development team that will also design the terminal next to it. The team will be chosen through an international competition likely to entice big names such as Sir Richard Rogers and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

"This will put San Francisco on the map as a city looking for design excellence," said Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

One superstar architect, Renzo Piano, has already signed on to design one of the towers, at 850 feet, on a site across from the terminal owned by a private developer.

And the development team of David Harrison and Ian Paget at Patson Cos. said they plan to throw their hat in the competition's ring. They said they look forward to creating a stand-out mixed-use proposal.

"This will be a new, tall stunning design and it will regenerate an area," said Paget of the tower and terminal ...

[lofter1]

What they're thinking ...

International competition staged in S.F.
to build new downtown transit terminal

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/18/ba_towers26_ph.jpg

Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/18/BAGI7N1F7D1.DTL&type=printable)

Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Monday, December 18, 2006

Quite a procession of big-name architects, engineers and developers turned up in San Francisco over the past couple of weeks to size up what's being hailed as the city's biggest development sweepstakes ever -- a new downtown transit terminal, coupled with an 80-story skyscraper.

If built, the high-rise would eclipse by least 150 feet the 853-foot-tall Transamerica Pyramid and could become the dominant feature of San Francisco's skyline.

"The current skyline is very flat, and needs some peaks to create a more distinctive look,'' city Planning Director Dean Macris said. (Ed. note: Huh?? I thought he resigned. Unlike Matier & Ross to make this kind of mistake)

Such is the prize sought by the more than 200 participants, representing 120 firms worldwide, who attended a pair of prebid conferences at the Herbst Theater over the past two weeks.

Among those showing interest was renowned Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, whose plan for a slender, twisting, 160-story tower in Chicago on the shores of Lake Michigan is undergoing final review.

The big question here is whether San Francisco can create enough demand to fill an 80-story high-rise -- one that would have a hotel, condos and offices to help cover the costs of the adjoining $1 billion transit terminal, serving Muni, AC Transit and the like.

Macris is hopeful, noting that commercial rents are rebounding strongly -- one big reason so many potential bidders showed up.

"They still see San Francisco growth opportunities,'' he said.

Then again, the last time the city had a major international competition -- back in 1988 for a planned Market Street tower that was supposed to spur the Yerba Buena Center development -- the project never took off.

One unknown this time: Another $1 billion would be needed to bring high-speed rail service to the terminal, and funding for that isn't likely anytime soon, if ever.

Finalists will be picked by a Transbay Joint Powers Authority panel Feb. 15, with designs due Aug. 10 and the selection of a winner just 15 days later.

[lofter1]

More ideas ...

Twin Towers Proposed for San Francisco

impactlab.com (http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10158)
December 23, 2006

San Francisco developers are proposing to build the nation's tallest towers outside of New York and Chicago -- a pair of slender high-rises 350 feet taller than the Transamerica Pyramid.

The plan presented Thursday to the city's Planning Department envisions a cluster of thin towers rising from 2 acres at the northwest corner of First and Mission streets. The cluster would include two 1,200-foot towers, two 900-foot structures and a 600-foot companion ...

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_a01_5star.jpg

[ablarc]

Nice to see you haven't forgotten the ol' home town, lofter.

[ablarc]

I wonder if Witold Rybczynski can be partially credited with San Francisco's newfound interest in taller buildings by starchitects. If so, it suggests that talk can bear worthwhile fruit (at least if it's well written and argued, as his is).

Always a pleasure to read Rybczynski's stuff. He wrote a book called Home: entertaining to the point of belly laughs.

[Fahzee]

What they're thinking ...

The big question here is whether San Francisco can create enough demand to fill an 80-story high-rise -- one that would have a hotel, condos and offices to help cover the costs of the adjoining $1 billion transit terminal, serving Muni, AC Transit and the like.....

One unknown this time: Another $1 billion would be needed to bring high-speed rail service to the terminal, and funding for that isn't likely anytime soon, if ever.


For those that don't know (and this illustrates a great difference between San Fran & New York) - The transit terminal as it currently stands is a run down bus depot. What's interesting to me is that the new transit terminal they're proposing is going to be a sprucy bus terminal, that may someday also have a rail link.

The 1 billion dollars for high speed rail is a little misleading - that 1 billion is actually going to cover the cost of a new rail tunnel which will extend from the current CALTRAIN terminal, rougly 1 mile away.

However, the Caltrain system, although fairly good for California rail, is still a diesal system, which will not fly in an underground tunnel. Which means that the entire Caltrain system will need to be revamped, with a new electrical power system and new trains before any rail can reach the new transit terminal. And the cost of this electrification is not factored into the billion dollar rail tunnel proposal.

Why bring this up? The towers are exciting, and hopefully San Fran will be able to tune out to the usual chorus anti growth zealots who seem to set the building pace in the city. But at the end of the day, we're talking about the equivelant of a building project larger in scope than the world trade center, that is being built around a port authority-like bus terminal.

Bottom line - I'm very curious to see how they plan to integrate a huge influx of buses (and the traffic this creates) with a huge influx of people & workers. Also - as some of these towers will include luxury housing, it will be interesting see how living around a bus terminal effects housing prices & demand (although people live around the Port Authority, so what do I know)

I guess what's interesting to me is that many of the articles I've read have compared this project to building "San Francisco's Grand Central" - but Grand Central is especially successful because residents and workers have very little intereaction with the train yard that is buried below park avenue. Buses are much harder to bury, and may effect the eventual outcome of this project.

[lofter1]

SF Transbay Transit Center - Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners Proposal (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&imageID=2519)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20east%20bay.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2507)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%2 0gate%20bridge.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2521)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY02.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2522)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/residential_unique_spaces.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2506)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY09.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2523)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY10.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2524)


http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY45.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2527)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY24.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2526)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY72.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2530)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/new_mission_street_entrance_plaza.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2534)

[lofter1]

Continued: SF Transbay Transit Center - Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners Proposal

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/market_hall_looking_towards_mission.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2535)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/natoma_street_retail.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2537)


http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/upper_level_boulevard.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2536)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/ground_level_muni_bus_plaza.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2517)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/development_sketches.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2531)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/site_plan.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2512)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/transit_ground%20hall%20level%20plan.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2516)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/transit_train%20platform%20level%20plam.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2515)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/transit_train%20mezzanine%20level%20plan.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2511)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/transit_bus%20boulevard%20level%20plan.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2505)

[lofter1]

Continued: SF Transbay Transit Center - Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners Proposal


http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/section%20through%20the%20public%20realm.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2513)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/transit_long%20section.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2514)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/transit_minna%20street%20elevation.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2510)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/tower_mission%20street%20view.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2509)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/tower_first_street_elevation.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2508)

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/Section.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2518)

Copyright © 2007 Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners. All rights reserved

[NewYorkDoc]

I wish we could see stuff like this in New York. Go get em' San Francisco!

[Fahzee]

pretty impressive, to be sure. If San Fran pulls this off they will have created one of the most attractive inter modal transit hubs in the country

[JCMAN320]

Been to San Fran twice for 2 week visits each time. I love that city and this will make me love it even more. I love how the towers evoke the Golden Gate Bridge. Give San Fran and the West Coast a signature building.

Way to go San Fran!!!

[ryeler]

Are you guys serious? I think this is horrid! I find it tacky and incredibly out of place. The red external supports or whatever are ugly, and the top is just... theres no way to describe it? What the hell is it? I do, though, really liek the terminal next to it.

[Scraperfannyc]

There are actually three proposals that came out of a design competition for the transbay tower and train terminal in SF. I liked the SOM design the best myself. Below is the link to the SOM design and video animations. Check them out, they are really cool!

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_animations

[lofter1]

The 3rd proposal that made the final cut (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?epi-content=MULTIMEDIA_GALLERY_PUBLIC_VIEW&newsId=20070806006350&newsLang=en) is by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects and Hines.

A small rendering ( a huge image for each of the 3 finalists is available at the above link):

http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=104528&vid=4

The SOM / Rockefeller proposal appears to me to be the strongest. I love the way it echoes SF's iconic Transamerica Pyramid.

[lofter1]

More Transbay Eye Candy

transbay blog (http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/more-transbay-eye-candy/)

I put a few pictures of the proposed Transbay designs in an earlier post (http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/three-transbay-designs-unveiled/), but if you haven’t yet seen them, there are a lot of other great pictures posted on the architect websites which have been a lot of fun to browse. These pictures include more angles on the towers, and also additional details about specific features of the plans, such as pedestrian plazas and plans for retail along Natoma Street:

Not much is up yet on the Pelli website (http://www.pcparch.com/flash.cfm), but hopefully they’ll put more up later. So far, there’s only a larger version of this one picture (http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/ba_transbay0701.jpg), which has already been quite well-distributed.
The Richard Rogers (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=table) website provides many extra sketches and photographs of the Forest City design that weren’t up at City Hall, nor are they in general media circulation.
Some good stuff is also up at the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (http://www.som.com/content.cfm/moving_san_francisco_into_the_future) website: several nice images, and also animations.The last few posts here have been all about the Transbay Terminal redesigns, and while that will obviously be an important part of this blog, I hope to move on next to some other topics, so please check back next week!

[lofter1]

The SocketSite Scoop:
San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal Designs

socketsite.com (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/08/the_socketsite_scoop_san_franciscos_tansbay_termin al_de.html)

Yes, all three proposals include wind turbines on top of their towers; will aim to achieve either Gold or Platinum LEED certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19); and plan to rise between 1,100 and 1,350 feet in the air. Other than that, all three aim to redefine "the center of San Francisco" in very different ways. Pictures (and a few details) now, highlights to follow.

From Pelli Clark Pelli Architects/Hines:

http://www.socketsite.com/Pelli%20Transbay%20Design.jpg

Proposed Tower Height: 1,200'
Proposed Tower Use: Commercial (1.6 million square feet; "potential for residential")
Proposed LEED Certification: Gold (possibly Platinum)

From Richard Rogers Partnership/Forest City Enterprises/MacFarlane Partners:

http://www.socketsite.com/Rogers%20Transbay%20Design.jpg

Proposed Tower Height: 1,155' (skyview roof); 1,287' (top of turbine)
Proposed Tower Use: Mixed (600K sq.ft. commercial; 200+ hotel rooms; 200-300 condos)
Proposed LEED Certification: Platinum (tower) / Gold (terminal)

From Skidmore Owings and Merrill/Rockefeller Group Development Corporation:

http://www.socketsite.com/SOM%20Transbay%20Design.jpg

Proposed Tower Height: 1,200' (occupied floor); 1,375' (top of parapet)
Proposed Tower Use: Mixed (31 floors office; 42 floors residential; 8 floors hotel)
Proposed LEED Certification: Platinum

A few more renderings:

Inside the Pelli Clark Pelli design (bus terminal level):

http://www.socketsite.com/Inside%20Pelli%20Clark%20Pelli%20TBT.jpg

The Richard Rogers design at dusk:

http://www.socketsite.com/Richard%20Rogers%20Design%20At%20Dusk.jpg

The Skidmore Owings and Merrill proposed tower plaza and terminal entrance:

http://www.socketsite.com/The%20SOM%20Tower%20Plaza.jpg

Note: Design models for all three proposals will be on display to the public Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 from 8 am to 6 pm in the North Light Court at San Francisco City Hall.

[GVNY]

This domestic tradition has produced interesting contemporary urban housing, but the very qualities that make residential buildings attractive are ill-suited to large urban projects, which need a different sense of style.



Oh, but Mr. Rybczynski, it IS possible to create Victorian period inspired architecture that are suited to large businesses, and even San Francisco has examples of this! Need more? Look at New York, Boston, and Chicago pre- 1901, amongst many other cities.

[lofter1]

Animation of the Pelli proposal: http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf

[lofter1]

SOARING PLANS FOR TRANSBAY TERMINAL

The West Coast's tallest building:
3 competing ideas show audacity that adds to the city's rising skyline

SF Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/07/BATMRD67A1.DTL)
John King, Jonathan Curiel
Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Photos (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/08/07/BATMRD67A1.DTL&o=4&type=printable)

Three competing proposals for what would be the tallest building on the West Coast were unveiled Monday in San Francisco amid architectural fanfare and political buzz.

There's no guarantee that any of the towers will be built, or that the design to be selected next month by public officials will reach the heights envisioned by the development teams. But the audacity of the designs - and the favorable response from elected officials - showed that the recent startling changes to the city's skyline are only a prelude to what could lie ahead.

"There they are," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said with a wave of his right hand as black mesh was pulled from three lavish large models. The event was held in a crowded event room at City Hall filled with dozens of people and several television crews. "Today is an historic day."

The three proposals range in height from 1,200 feet to 1,375 feet - each extending well past the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid, the tallest tower in San Francisco. And each is accompanied by a transit terminal that is intended to become a major civic gateway.

The competition is being held by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a regional government body created in 2001 to bring about the construction of a new transit terminal in San Francisco that backers say could become the regional equivalent of Grand Central Station.

The authority would sell or lease the tower site to a developer, with the proceeds helping pay the estimated $983 million cost of the terminal and related elements such as new bus-only ramps from the Bay Bridge.

After the unveiling, the hearing where each team made its presentation attracted an overflow crowd to the Board of Supervisors chambers in City Hall, with more than 100 people watching a video hookup in another room.

But public officials aren't stressing the architectural flourishes as much as the transportation payoff of the new terminal located one block from Market Street and BART.

"Through this facility, we can create a statement to the rest of the world while creating a seamless transportation network connecting the Bay Area to the rest of the region and state," said San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, who chairs the Transbay authority's Board of Directors.

Long-term plans for the transit complex include extending commuter rail lines from where they now stop at Fourth and King streets. The design would also allow for high-speed rail service from Southern California, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has delayed putting a bond for the service on the ballot.

In the early planning for the new terminal, it was assumed that any tower alongside it would climb no higher than 550 feet. Now, though, public officials say the extra height is merited - not just to boost the land sales, but to show that San Francisco continues to measure itself against other cities of global status that are seeing super tall towers proposed or built.

The three proposals are similar in several ways: Each cloaks the terminal in glass, and each tops the tower with a translucent or open crown with wind turbines tucked inside it. Each would be roughly the height of the Empire State Building, which is 1,250 feet high.

Also, with an eye toward environmental issues, each project emphasizes sustainable design elements such as the turbines, which would generate power for the complex.

Finally, each team played its presentation to the hilt - with elaborate models and videos as well as with assurances that a new civic landmark waited off stage.

"In a single stroke, this design will redefine for the world San Francisco's architectural, urban and environmental intentions," said architect Craig Hartman of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, echoing a theme struck by the other teams.

The Skidmore firm joined with Rockefeller Group Development Corp. to propose a 1,200-foot tower that would twist and fold as it rose, while a glass "crown" would extend another 175 feet. On the ground, the tower would be punctuated by an open-air passage 70 feet wide and 103 feet tall leading to the terminal concourse.

By comparison, the design by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects for Houston-based developer Hines is a 1,200-foot-high obelisk-shaped office tower with a sleek silhouette. The most dramatic element is a 1,300-foot-long park, designed by Berkeley's Peter Walker and Partners, that would sit atop the terminal at the sixth-floor level and measure more than five acres.

The third proposal is from a team including Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners with developers Forest City Enterprises and McFarlane Partners. The metal tower includes exposed elevators for a sense of movement, and rises 1,100 feet - but the steel frame would continue another 125 feet and enclose a wind turbine that would be visible on the skyline.

For all the hoopla connected to the tower, there's no guarantee that any of the visions unveiled on Monday will be built - or even that they'll be the deciding factor in determining which team wins the right to conduct exclusive negotiations with the authority.

Each proposal was evaluated in private last week at Fort Mason by an appointed jury that includes architects and engineers as well as a transportation expert and a real estate analyst. The jury will present its recommendation to the authority board on Aug. 30.

In evaluating the three proposals, jury members are directed to base 60 percent of their evaluation on the design for the transit station and on "functionality and technical issues," according to the evaluation sheet. As for the tower, economics are every bit as important as aesthetics, with such directives as: "The jury will focus on the timing and amount of revenue to the TJPA."

Another unresolved issue: how tall the tower will be allowed to be.

City planning officials aren't shy about wanting an extremely tall tower, and they encouraged the boldness seen in the three proposals. But a full environmental study is needed before zoning can be changed - and the planning work to test such heights only now is getting under way.

Whatever proposals do emerge will be scrutinized by potential foes in a city long wary of high-rises. Indeed, a voter-approved proposition from 1984 makes it difficult to erect any tower that cast shade on a public park.

Still, support for the tower is considerable.

Besides public officials, it includes a number of environmental groups who in the past have fought for height limits but now see mass transit as a critical issue for the region. There's also support from civic groups that want to concentrate development in the core of the city - the same impulse that prompted the residential towers now rising between Mission Street and the Bay Bridge.

But the tallest such tower - One Rincon, which was recently topped off at Harrison and Fremont streets - is 605 feet tall. That's less than half the height of what the three development teams are proposing.

The Transbay authority is scheduled to vote on Sept. 20 to select the development team. The goal is to have the new transit station in operation by 2014.

The models and other details of each proposal will be on display today from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. next to the rotunda in San Francisco City Hall.

Online resources

For more information about the Transbay Terminal competition:
links.sfgate.com/ZOG (http://links.sfgate.com/ZOG)


PLAN A

The proposal: An 82-story tower topped by a wind turbine that includes offices, housing and a hotel next to a transit center that would have fresh food markets and cultural facilities.

The architects: Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. The London firm's current projects include a tower for the World Trade Center site in New York City. Founder Richard Rogers is the winner of the 2007 Pritzker Architecture Prize, the profession's highest honor. Assisting the Rogers team is SMWM, a San Francisco firm.

The developers: Forest City Enterprises with MacFarlane Partners. Cleveland-based Forest City was a developer of Westfield San Francisco Centre. McFarlane Partners is headquartered in San Francisco and is working with Forest City on the Uptown housing project in Oakland.


PLAN B

The proposal: A mixed-use obelisk-shaped tower along a transit terminal that would be topped by an open-air, 5.4-acre rooftop park with vast skylights that allow sunlight to shine onto the floor below.

The architects: Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects. The Connecticut firm's work includes 560 Mission St., a 31-story tower in San Francisco. Founder Cesar Pelli is best-known for such high-rises as Petronas Towers, the tallest buildings in the world from 1998 to 2004. Pelli is working with WRNS Studio of San Francisco, which also is involved with the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco.

The developer: Hines. Based in Houston, Hines has developed a number of high-rises in San Francisco during the past 25 years, including 101 California St. and 560 Mission St.


PLAN C

The proposal: A 1,200-foot-tall tower with a torqued shape. The first floor would be raised 100 feet above the ground to allow for a public plaza next to a full-block park.

The designer: Skidmore Owings Merrill. The architects are in the San Francisco office of this storied firm. They include Craig Hartman, the lead designer of the International Terminal of San Francisco International Airport, and Brian Lee, the designer of two towers taller than 1,000 feet in China, both under construction.

The developer: Rockefeller Group Development Corp. The name is synonymous with urban icons - think Rockefeller Center - but the firm now is owned by Japan's Mitsubishi Estate Co.

© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.

[ld876]

http://www.socketsite.com/Pelli%20Transbay%20Design.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/SOM%20Transbay%20Design.jpg



The Skidmore Owings and Merrill proposed tower plaza and terminal entrance:

http://www.socketsite.com/The%20SOM%20Tower%20Plaza.jpg



NYC and the rest of the world should really take notice. Look at the above, the soaring entrance compared to the bunker that is 'Freedom Tower' (such a paradox -- Freedom Tower is in lockdown...). Not just take notice, but be embarrassed they have nothing that even matches the concepts.

Sidenote -- I thought I liked the red strutts and transit idea, then saw the SOM one -- WOW. Really, really beautifully done. I change my opinion, go with SOM, or just build them all. My mouth is watering.

[TREPYE]

Man, what a beautiful assembly of inspirational scrapers. I'd take all of em but if it is just one I would have to go with.....

Rogers' masterpice. Its eyecatching, dynamic and it pushes the limits of convention. If this gets approved ( I see $$ being an issue with this one), I may have to put him up there with the likes of Calatrava, Foster and Gerhy, this guy is just a marvelous architect.

The SOM design is very, very nice. Im shocked that I find myself talking about SOM in this regard but they have counjered up an impressive, elegant piece of work.

Pelli's tower with his signature sublime/subliminal tapering at the top is wonderful but not as nice as the other 2 designs.

[lofter1]

PCP Wins Round Three

CURBED SF (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/09/20/pcp_wins_round_three.php)
September 20, 2007, by Philip

http://sf.curbed.com/2007_09_08_pcp-thumb.png

And so it's going to be The Tusk, the Houston-inspired spire from
Pelli Clarke Pelli and the Hines Interests. It's all about the money,
and they came up with a lot more scratch.

2014 will be here before we know it.

· Transbay Transit Center Animation (http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf) [Pelli Clarke Pelli]

[lofter1]

Design Picked For SF Transbay Terminal, Skyscraper

CBS 5 (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_263162246.html)
Sept. 20, 2007

Slideshow: See All Proposed Designs From Finalists (http://cbs5.com/slideshows/local_slideshow_222132444)

(CBS 5 / AP / BCN) SAN FRANCISCO A regional transportation commission picked a Connecticut architecture firm Thursday to design a new bus and train terminal in downtown San Francisco that has been described as the "Grand Central Station of the West" and an adjacent skyscraper that would be the tallest building this side of Chicago.

New Haven-based Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects beat out two other finalists for the right to move forward with multi-billion-dollar project at First and Mission streets that promises to remake the San Francisco skyline, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors announced.

"The Transit Center, with its accompanying tower, will have an immeasurable impact in the life and form of the city," architect Cesar Pelli said.

The firm's winning bid includes topping the new Transbay Terminal with a 5.4-acre city park and building a 1,200-foot-tall, obelisk-shaped office tower next door to raise cash and customers for the mass transit complex. Its partner in the deal, the Hines development firm, offered to pay $350 million for the land under the building.

The skyscraper's base will be encased in glass to let in natural light, officials said. They added that the park will help improve the environmental impact of the center by absorbing pollution, treating and recycling water and providing a habitat for local wildlife.

A jury of planning and design experts last week recommended the commission select the Pelli Clarke proposal, saying it best fit San Francisco and had the most potential of fulfilling the city's goals for the neighborhood that the new structures would anchor.

"The selection of Pelli and Hines to build this transit hub and tower is a testament to the values, the vision and the excitement of San Francisco and the entire Bay Area region," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said.

The other finalists, from a design and development competition launched in November 2006, were the developer-designer team of Forest City Enterprises and architect Richard Rogers, and a team composed of Skidmore Owings and Merrill architects and Rockefeller Development Group.

Government officials hope to begin demolishing the city's existing bus terminal next year and to have its replacement built by 2014.

The new transit center will accommodate eight regional transportation systems, including Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, Golden Gate Transit, San Mateo County Transit District, Greyhound, Bay Area Rapid Transit and the future California High-Speed Rail.

The high-speed rail promises to reduce travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles to two and a half hours, according to officials.

© CBS Broadcasting Inc.

[lofter1]

'Aggressive schedule' for proposed
Transbay transit center, tower

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay017_pelli.jpg
SF Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/BAO7S9J2H.DTL)
John King
September 20, 2007

San Francisco -- The developers who want to build San Francisco's tallest building - potentially the tallest tower on the West Coast - should be able to get the approvals they need within 18 months, the city's planning director said Thursday.

"In San Francisco that's an aggressive schedule, but we're determined to make this happen," Planning Director Dean Macris told the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. "We want to help create a unique urban place the equal of anything in this country."

The comment by Macris came as the Transbay Authority's Board of Directors voted unanimously to begin negotiations with the Hines development firm and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects. The team wants to build a 1,200-foot office tower at First and Mission streets and has offered $350 million for the site - money that would help pay for a new Transbay Terminal next door.

The proposal is the result of a competition with two other teams. The Hines-Pelli proposal was the favorite of the jury that reviewed the proposals, in part because the team offered $200 million more than its rivals.

Authority officials hope to work out a financial deal with Hines within six months. In the same period, Macris said, the Planning Department aims to release an initial recommendation as to what heights should be allowed on the Transbay site and nearby blocks. At present, the neighborhood has a 550-foot height limit.

If all goes well, zoning would be in place by early 2009 - in time for the Hines-Pelli team to take a revised version of its proposal to the city's Planning Commission. If this occurs, construction could begin within months and a tower could open by 2013.

In selecting the Hines-Pelli team, the Transbay Authority also selected the Pelli firm's design for a new terminal - a futuristic quarter-mile-long structure that would extend above First and Fremont streets and would be topped by a 5.4-acre park.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21_street_ph7.jpg

The terminal is part of a $983 million project that also includes demolition of the current terminal and running a temporary terminal. Transbay officials hope to open the new terminal by 2014.

The maintenance and operation of the park are likely to be a factor in the negotiations, since a space that looks good on paper could turn out to be empty or unsafe in real life.

For instance, Transbay's citizen advisory group announced its support Thursday for the Hines-Pelli team - but expressed major concerns over an elevated public park and a fear that the jury may have overestimated the attraction of a landscape 70 feet above street level.

In response, Hines senior vice president Paul Paradis said the firm would want to be active in scheduling events in the park. It also would push for creation of an assessment district among nearby property owners to create a maintenance fund.

"We want to help," Paradis said. "The transit center and the park are very important to the tower."

The advisory group and several board members also questioned the fact that Hines wants to devote the proposed tower to office space rather than also including condominiums or a hotel. But the board did not make a formal request that the uses be made more diverse.

That's only one of the changes that could occur as the project evolves, and as the tower enters the civic approval process.

Most dramatically, the height could be reduced because of concerns over shadows or wind. And any rezoning goes through San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, where critics could argue that no tower should rise beyond the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid - now the city's tallest building.

However, the political push for a new transit terminal makes it likely that the proposal will move ahead without drastic reductions in size.

The incentive is simple: Hines' $350 million offer will shrink in proportion to the tower's lessened size. And since no sale takes place until the tower is approved, there's an incentive to keep the process moving and not send the project into regulatory limbo, as often happens in San Francisco's battles over growth.

Despite this, officials Thursday stressed that the choice of the Hines-Pelli team does not translate into a rubber stamp of their proposal.

"There's a lot more design work and engineering work to be done," said Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the Transbay Authority. "While the financial offer and architectural design are important, the most important goal we have is a transit facility that works efficiently and ... stands the test of time."

The same point was made by Mayor Gavin Newsom at an afternoon news conference.

"This is not the end of the process," Newsom said. "Now we begin robustly to engage the community."

Two other teams entered the competition.

Rockefeller Group Development Corp. teamed with Skidmore Owings & Merrill to propose a sinuous 1,375-foot tower alongside a new terminal. Forest City Enterprises and Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners proposed a lean open-air terminal next to an 1,100-foot glass tower topped by an enormous wind turbine.

The terminal is designed to handle AC Transit buses that would enter the third floor from a ramp connected to the Bay Bridge, as well as local buses. The basement is reserved for future train service - but that portion of the project relies on extending the commuter rail lines that now end at Fourth and King streets.

The rail phase has an estimated cost of $2.4 billion. Only $400 million in funding has been identified; however, since the Hines-Pelli offer is more than twice what was anticipated, officials hope to steer some of the money into the project's rail needs.
Online resources

Learn more about the Transbay Terminal project:

www.transitcenter.org (http://www.transitcenter.org)

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21-interior_ph3.jpg

The half-acre Mission Square would serve as the front yard of the complex, an open-air plaza topped by a glass canopy that billows up to the terminal's rooftop park. Along Fremont Street would be two rows of redwood trees - and between them, a funicular tram that whisks visitors to the park on the terminal's roof.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21_missionsq_ph2.jpg

The crown of the tower would extend 100 feet beyond the top floor - a metal cage tapered to accent the building's silhouette. Inside would be four wind turbines. Not only would they generate electricity, they would glow as they spin - and glow more intensely in strong winds.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21_turbines_ph4.jpg

The tower would be sheathed in a metal grid - vertical and horizontal fins that extend as much as three feet beyond office windows. Besides adding depth to the facade, they'd serve as sunscreens and should help reduce the tower's energy needs by 15 percent.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21_curtai.jpg

The Transit Center layout has trains arriving below-ground (assuming money is found to extend tracks from their current terminus at Fourth and King streets) while the ground floor includes ticket booths and banks of escalators, with local bus service on the east end. A second-floor concourse is devoted to waiting areas; the buses would be on the third floor.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21_trains_ph10.jpg

© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.

[alonzo-ny]

Why is everyone obsessed with not surpassing in height a significant building, usually not significant for its height?

[Scraperfannyc]

The terminal is stunning! The building is better than the typical box. Eh, they cheated though, they bought out the competition. Still, this is a great development. I could only hope NYC at least matches these bold plans for the Penn Station, although I do not think bullet trains are in the plans in NYC yet.

[czsz]

I do not think bullet trains are in the plans in NYC yet.

Nor in California, as far as I know...just normal high-speed rail, like the Acela Express - which already serves New York.

[alonzo-ny]

anyone think?

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/TRANSBAY45.jpg (http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=detail&sortBy=&sortDir=&imageID=2527)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1425/1424414622_47808341dc_o.jpg

[Scraperfannyc]

Nor in California, as far as I know...just normal high-speed rail, like the Acela Express - which already serves New York.

No, they actually do have plans for bullet trains between LA and SF as part of the transbay project. I would be surprised if this is actually built, but I did hear about it. It is also mentioned in the link below.

Quote: "At stake is a downtown San Francisco terminal that would allow people to transfer between major Bay Area transit systems under one roof while using one fare. From the basement, bullet trains would carry people to downtown Los Angeles in 21/2 hours."


http://www.calrailnews.com/highspeed.html

[lofter1]

Quite a bit farther SF < > LA (minimum 5 hours via car via Interstate 5) than the east coast trips ...

2.5 hours travel time via (proposed) bullet train ^^^ from SF < > LA (Distance (http://www.ersys.com/usa/06/0644000/distance.htm): 341 miles)

3 hours travel time via Acela (http://www.independenttraveler.com/resources/article.cfm?AID=607&category=42) from Washington DC < > NYC (Distance (http://www.ersys.com/usa/11/1150000/distance.htm): 204 miles)

3.5 hours travel time via Acela (http://www.independenttraveler.com/resources/article.cfm?AID=607&category=42) from NYC < > Boston (Distance (http://www.ersys.com/usa/25/2507000/distance.htm): 188 miles)

[Citytect]

The tower isn't very "signature" considering there are several very similar-looking buildings in existence in other cities. Still, it's a design that works.

[BigMac]

USA Today
October 15, 2007

San Francisco makeover: Nothing short of in-spired

By John Ritter

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/10/14/sanfranciscox-large.jpg
An elevated city park and 1.6-million-square-foot office tower would reshape San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO — Where else but here, the cradle of psychedelic, would you expect a sleek, skyline-dwarfing skinny office tower crowned with a spin-in-the-wind, glowing, turbine-powered light show?

It's all part of a $1 billion development the city — like a few others with major projects underway — is betting will be the wave of the future: building up instead of out, the denser the better, stressing trains and buses over cars.

The proposed Transbay Transit Center with its possible 1,200-foot tower, elevated public park the length of five football fields and room for high-speed trains someday linking California's major cities, will be a "symbolic expression of our environmental values," says Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association, a public policy think tank.

"It's a statement that our highest value is ecology," he says. "Just as church steeples were always the tallest buildings in the Middle Ages, we're marking our transit hub as the most important spot on the skyline."

The joint agency formed to handle this project approved the skyscraper's design last month. Its developer, Hines, has announced a tentative financing deal. City officials have said they hope to move the project through the planning bureaucracy in 18 months.

According to David Goldberg, a spokesman for Smart Growth America, a national coalition working to slow sprawl, other sprawl-spoiled cities are embarking on long-term developments aimed at getting commuters out of cars and encouraging mass transit to cut pollution and traffic congestion:

•Atlanta's BeltLine project is an example: a rail loop around the city core with parks, trails and dense neighborhoods clustered at station stops.

•Another is Denver's voter-approved regional light rail and rapid bus system designed to concentrate future growth closer in.

•Salt Lake City's light rail system would do the same.

•Dallas has plans for "transit-oriented developments" around light rail.

•Even Los Angeles "is trying to figure out how to retrofit the prototypical automobile-driven metro area" around subway and light rail lines, Goldberg says.

"In a place like San Francisco, the notion of higher density and a mix of uses is not radical," he says. "But even there that kind of planning and development hasn't been real common."

The Transbay tower, which hasn't been named yet, would rise nearly 400 feet above the city's tallest structure, the Transamerica Pyramid, pending zoning changes to allow taller buildings. The skyscraper designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects would be part of a long-term effort to change San Francisco's relatively low, flat, "pancake" skyline, says city planning director Dean Macris.

The building and 12-block redevelopment area around it could support more tall towers, spaced among town house and condo neighborhoods, Macris says.

"In San Francisco, oftentimes tall buildings become political statements rather than a building form," he says. "Will there be pushback? Of course there will be." In the 1920s, three 400-foot-tall buildings caused a stir. Forty years later, the pyramid and 52-story Bank of America Center did the same.

"We want the skyline to rise to certain peaks to express the importance of certain locations in the city," Macris says.

The design of the tower could have done a better job of that, says Henry Urbach, architecture and design curator at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. "It's a competent building, but not one that will necessarily break new ground in urban space and urban infrastructure," he says. "We should insist on a building that people will come to San Francisco to see. This isn't it."

Peter Bosselmann, an urban design professor at the University of California, Berkeley, believes the building's height will be reduced. "I think it would stand out in a bad way," he says, because of San Francisco's tradition of height limits compatible with its hilly topography. Bosselmann also wonders whether office-space demand will bear out to make it profitable.

Hines will pay $350 million for land the tower will be built on in the city's south or market district. The money will help finance the transit center, a hub for light rail, commuter trains and, at some point, high-speed, or bullet, trains.

The tower would taper as it rises and provide 1.6 million square feet of office space, "not an absurd amount" in a city that absorbs 1 million new square feet a year, Hines Vice President Paul Paradis says.

"We think people have come to realize the benefit of tall in urban cores," he says. "That's why we're not seeing a lot of opposition."

As for those penthouse turbines, housed in a 100-foot-tall metal cage above the top floor, their purpose, for now, is aesthetic only. The wind would spin four turbines, powering a light that would glow brighter the stronger the gusts. Paradis says he believes technology will be perfected to take advantage of high winds and help generate energy.

"You need to make the turbines quiet and not vibrate too much for the space near them to be habitable," he says. "With the wind going as fast as it does and these turbines creating resistance, that's not an easy engineering problem."

Copyright 2007 USA TODAY

[TREPYE]

^ The worst of the 3 designs was selected :cool:. Doesnt mean that its a failure, it still nice just not as nice as SOM and Rogers' designs.

[investordude]

It seems like a copy cat of the International Finance Center in Hong Kong.

[Scraperfannyc]

Still though, this is an impressive building even if it is a copy and paste job. At least it is not a copy and paste of the standard glass box.

The design competition was 60% based on the terminal. I am more impressed with this terminal than this building. I don't like the fact that these guys bought out the competition though.

All said, I sure wouldn't mind one of these sprouting out in midtown. I am growing tired of the stunted growth syndrome in midtown. Even Bofa's roof height seems pretty level with the rest. Compare bofa to the rest of the developments going on in the rest of the world in the skyscraper page construction diagram (http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?2063133) and bofa's height is just not to par. Point is, the height of buildings in midtown has gotten old.

[investordude]

Yeah, it looks like a nice building. But I hope there is some twist from the HK building that's not obvious on the picture. San Francisco is the most important US gateway to Asia, so it would be nice if we could say something other than "we can create shorter less impressive copies of your originals" to people coming from overseas.

Still, I agree New York should build tall, though the Bofa Tower is about the same height as this proposed building (Bofa looks shorter because its wider).

[investordude]

I'm including the spire when I say the buildings are of similar height. Perhaps that's not fair - it looks like SF building is 1200 feet occupied space.

[Scraperfannyc]

I'm including the spire when I say the buildings are of similar height. Perhaps that's not fair - it looks like SF building is 1200 feet occupied space.

Exactly. That's what I want all the developers to believe as well. Granted, bofa has alot more bulk, and I love the architecture of this baby, but I'd rather see a large chunk of this building as part of the skyline rather than the spire being the biggest identifier.

[Ed007Toronto]

I'm including the spire when I say the buildings are of similar height. Perhaps that's not fair - it looks like SF building is 1200 feet occupied space.

The top doesn't look like occupied space to me. Looks like you can see the sky through the top 10 or so floors.

[investordude]

An unoccupied enclosed structure still seems better to me than a spire, in terms of whether to include it on height.

In fairness to NY, if all the towers at the WTC Site get built, they are all taller than this building will be I believe. It would be nice to get a 1300 footer in Hudson Yards but I don't think it will happen.

[investordude]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/24/BAARSUVB4.DTL

OK, I think Ahnuld is right - we shouldn't have small neighborhoods charge outsiders fees to use their roads. But still, I kind of liked the idea of a tall tower by the bay bridge. Can't they just drop the congestion pricing scheme and go forward? Traffic is so badly gated by the Oakland toll plaza that I doubt allowing the small number of cars onto the bridge would create congestion anyway.

[lofter1]

The proposed Transbay Transit Center with its possible 1,200-foot tower, elevated public park the length of five football fields and room for high-speed trains someday linking California's major cities, will be a "symbolic expression of our environmental values,"


Bay Area route dispute threatens high-speed rail line

http://www.examiner.com/images/newsroom/3670899B-3048-2F0A-AA30E2F38447EB6B.jpg
The nine-member board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority is scheduled
to decide next month how to get the bullet trains through the coastal mountains
between the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay area, and the debate
over the options has become fierce.

SF Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/a-1044482~Bay_Area_route_dispute_threatens_high_spee d_rail_line.html?cid=rss-San_Francisco)
Steve Lawrence, The Associated Press
2007-11-13 00:37:00.0

SACRAMENTO - The state board that is planning California's 700-mile high-speed rail system is facing a politically sensitive route decision that could make or break the $40 billion project.

The nine-member board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority is scheduled to decide next month how to get the bullet trains through the coastal mountains between the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay area, and the debate over the options has become fierce.

Five members of Congress representing districts from the Bay area to Monterey have threatened to oppose federal funding for the project if the board chooses a northern route that generally would follow Interstate 580 through the Altamont Pass.

Supporters of the Altamont Pass option have raised the possibility of a lawsuit if the board picks a southerly route following Highway 152 through Pacheco Pass.

"I think it's going to be very contentious whatever they choose," said Alan Miller, executive director of the Train Riders Association of California, a group of 1,200 rail enthusiasts that supports the Altamont route.

The authority is proposing a rail system that would carry passengers between California's largest cities on trains that run at top speeds of more than 200 mph. Supporters see it as an important third option to freeway and air travel as the state's population heads toward 60 million by 2050.

Board members are looking for a combination of state, federal and private funding to finance the system. A nearly $10 billion bond measure on the November 2008 ballot would help pay for a first link of the system between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area.

The rail board has generally settled on routes for most of the system, which also would stop in Sacramento, Fresno, Anaheim, San Diego and other cities.

But it has held off on the San Francisco Bay area segment after initially ruling out an Altamont route as too costly, inefficient and environmentally damaging.

The Pacheco route would come west from cutoff points near Merced or Chowchilla through the Pacheco Pass and then turn north to San Jose. It would then split and run up either side of the bay to San Francisco and Oakland.

Under one possible Altamont alignment, tracks would begin heading west between Stockton and Modesto before splitting into three segments at Fremont. One branch would go south to San Jose, one would run north to Oakland and a third would cross the bay to Redwood City and then turn north to San Francisco.

Another option would link San Francisco to the Altamont route through a transbay tube to Oakland.

Some supporters of the Altamont route say the trains could simply go around the southern end of the bay instead of going across or under it. But that would add 39 minutes to the travel time to San Francisco, said Laura Stuchinsky, director of transportation and land use for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an advocacy organization for the area's computer industry.

Pacheco Pass supporters say that route would be more efficient, allowing one train to serve San Francisco and San Jose or San Jose and Oakland instead of just one of the three cities.

"We think it's the fastest way to serve Northern and Southern California and to serve the major cities in this area," Stuchinsky said. "It makes more sense to come through one of the three major cities and then serve the other two rather than come through a fourth point and then serve the other three."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat, said an Altamont route that crosses the southern bay would damage the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is 30,000 acres of mudflats, marshes and vernal pools that were named after former Rep. Don Edwards.

"If there is a plan to degrade the wildlife refuge, I will do everything I can to make sure there's no federal funds for this project," she said. "I don't think I'll be alone."

Lofgren and four other members of Congress - Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, Sam Farr, D-Carmel, Mike Honda, D-San Jose, and Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo - wrote a letter to the authority in August warning that choosing an Altamont route could "well make us rethink our support of any federal funding for the project."

Opponents of the Pacheco Pass route, which include some environmental groups, say it also would damage wetlands and grasslands while encouraging urban sprawl.

Melissa Hippard, director of the Sierra Club's Loma Prieta chapter, said a high-arching railroad bridge or a tunnel under the bay could lessen any negative effects on the Edwards wildlife refuge.

The Sierra Club hasn't taken a formal position on the alignment, but "we're just not convinced that the Pacheco Pass is a winner," she said.

The debate has tended to be divided along geographic lines, with San Francisco and San Jose area officials supporting the Pacheco Pass route to the south and the San Joaquin Valley and much of the East Bay generally backing the Altamont Pass route.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a planning agency for nine San Francisco area counties, is suggesting a compromise: Build a Pacheco Pass route that would primarily carry express trains between Northern and Southern California and an Altamont line for regional trains that would stop more frequently.

The dual-line scenario would add $5 billion to the project's cost but also would improve commuter service, said Doug Kimsey, the commission's planning director.

The high-speed rail board's staff also is recommending a two-line approach.
Under a staff proposal to be presented Wednesday, the Pacheco Pass route would connect San Jose and San Francisco. The Altamont line would split in the East Bay before going to Oakland and San Jose and could carry a combination of high-speed and commuter trains.

"I would say this is the best mobility solution we can offer, given the constraints," said Mehdi Morshed, the rail board's executive director.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's executive director, Steve Heminger, worries that continued fighting over the high-speed rail route could sink the $10 billion bond measure and the project.

"Passage of this measure will be an incredibly difficult challenge," he said. "If we don't stop fighting over these alignments and arrive at a consensus, I fear we will lose the whole thing."

High-speed rail board member Rod Diridon, a former Santa Clara County supervisor, thinks critics of the board's route decision ultimately will support the overall project, despite their initial disappointment.

---

On the Net: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov)

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

***

Staff backs bullet train's route over
Pacheco Pass instead of Altamont

East Bay Business Times (http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/11/12/daily31.html?f=et62&ana=e_du)
November 14, 2007

High speed passenger trains may run through San Jose instead of an alternate East Bay route, according to reports Wednesday.

Staff at the California High-Speed Rail Authority (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/results.html?Ntk=All&Ntx=mode matchallpartial&Ntt=%22California%20High-Speed%20Rail%20Authority%22) made the recommendation after two years of study and lobbying by interest groups, and the authority's board is expected to make a final vote within about a month.

A route from Anaheim through San Jose -- taking the train over Pacheco Pass instead of the East Bay's Altamont Pass -- has been pushed by political and business leaders from the South Bay.

If voters approve a November 2008 bond measure, a first chunk of $10 billion will be provided for the rail system, which is expected to cost about $40 billion in all.

The trains probably won't be running until at least 2018.

© 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc.

[lofter1]

Pacheco Pass

From "Miwok-Yokut Raids into Mexican California, 1830-1840 (http://www.militarymuseum.org/Miwok.html)"

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Resources/MiwokMap.gif

[investordude]

California's budget deficit next year is going to be 10 billion dollars. I don't think there is enough political will to make this happen.

[lofter1]

It MUST happen sooner or later ...

Population of California 2000 = ~ 33,800,000

Projected Population @ 2030 = 46,000,000

(In that same time span NY State is projected to increase by a mere 1,000,000 !!)

[investordude]

I personally think the Ghiradelli complex will suck forever and always because its too mall-like, but here's a scheme to upscale it and renovate it.

http://www.globest.com/news/1037_1037/gsrwest/166048-1.html

[lofter1]

Oh, boy :rolleyes: another "spa experience" :

Fairmont Heritage Place (http://www.fairmontheritageplace.com/content/destinations/sanfrancisco_gallery.asp), Ghiradelli Square

to hell in a handbasket http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

[lofter1]

Art and History Clash on City’s Sacred Ground

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/30/us/30presid.span.ready.jpg
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
A barracks at the Presidio in San Francisco, where Don Fisher, the founder of the Gap,
and his wife, Doris, want to build an art museum.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/us/30presid.html?ref=us)
By PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN
March 30, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — From the floor-to-ceiling windows in his office atop the Gap headquarters, Don Fisher, the company’s billionaire founder and chairman emeritus, has dazzling IMAX-style vistas of San Francisco Bay. But the killer view has stiff competition from the flotilla of Calders, Diebenkorns, Rauschenbergs, Twomblys and a succession of Mick Jaggers by Andy Warhol that form a veritable art park in his midst.

One of the country’s foremost collectors of contemporary art, Mr. Fisher, 79, and his wife, Doris, 76, say they long for a permanent place to put it all. Mr. Fisher, a San Francisco native who is no stranger to controversy, believes he has found the perfect spot: the historic heart of the Presidio, a national park and National Historic Landmark district.

The Fishers’ plan to build a 100,000-square-foot modern complex of glass and white cast masonry at the head of the park’s storied Civil War parade ground is sparking fierce opposition from preservationists, whom Mr. Fisher calls “the nimbys.”

The National Park Service, the Sierra Club, the National Trust for Historic Preservation have all questioned the museum’s scale, location and style — a sleek set of overlapping white boxes — amid Victorian brick buildings with wooden porches and pitched roofs. “It is unrelated to the nature of the place,” said Whitney Hall, a retired colonel who was the post commander from 1979-1982. “It is so large and intrusive that in effect it establishes a new identity for the historic center of the Presidio.”

Mr. Fisher said recently of an alternate proposal, by a nonprofit history association, for a more modest museum on the site: “Other people have ideas for it. But they don’t have any money.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/30/us/30presid.GUY.pop.jpg
Digital Imaging Studio/Gluckman Mayner Architects
Mr. Fisher with some of his art collection at Gap headquarters in San Francisco.

In a city where community politics is something of a blood sport, the Fisher plan has caused a culture clash, in which art, history, money and power are slugging it out in a breathtaking urban setting.

The Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio, or CAMP, designed by Gluckman Mayner Architects of New York, is the latest chapter in the fractious saga of the Presidio, situated on 1,491 rolling, forested acres overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge. In the words of Gary Widman, the president of the Presidio Historical Association, the Main Parade is “holy ground.” It lies near the remains of the garrison built by the Spanish in 1776 and considered the birthplace of San Francisco.

Today the park is home to an eclectic mix of nonprofit groups and the ultimate anchor tenant, George Lucas, whose Victorian-inspired Letterman Digital Arts Center, situated in a less historically significant setting, also elicited heated debate.

“We can’t bring back the military,” said Craig Middleton, executive director of the Presidio Trust. “So the question is, how do you bring back a sense of robustness and activity?”

The parade ground, much of it covered ignominiously by a parking lot, is bordered by brick barracks from the Civil War era. The trust plans to spend $40 million to create a swath of green that will eventually reunite the Presidio with Crissy Field’s resplendent two-mile promenade along San Francisco Bay. The Fishers have promised to contribute $10 million to the restoration — if their plan is approved by the Presidio Trust after public review.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/30/us/30PresidioRENDERING.pop.jpg
Digital Imaging Studio/Gluckman Mayner Architects
A rendering of the proposed Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio.

The Fishers decided against donating their collection — including works by Gerhard Richter, Agnes Martin and Chuck Close — to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. They offered to finance a wing, with the caveat that the entire collection be seen. “The museums will never make that commitment,” Mr. Fisher said. “It’s an unfortunate situation where most of the art that is given to museums ends up in the basement.”

When the SFMoma idea fell through, he said, “The trust suggested putting the museum in the Presidio.” (Mr. Middleton insists Mr. Fisher came to them.)

The Fishers plan to set up a foundation, which would own the art in perpetuity, and rehabilitate one of the historic barracks for offices, art studios and classrooms. Mr. Fisher told The San Francisco Chronicle that he wanted to “have some fun being the curator of my collection while I’m still living.”

In circumventing the museum establishment, the Fishers join a growing number of major art patrons whose collections rival or surpass those of traditional museums, said Allan Schwartzman, a New York art adviser who called the Fishers’ cache “one of the great collections of our time.”

In the process, they are defining what it means to be a modern-day Medici. “Money that would have gone to museums is now going into a parallel world,” Mr. Schwartzman said. The issue is whether that parallel world should be a national park landmark district.

Because it is a national landmark district and federal land, the Presidio Trust is legally required to consider reasonable alternative locations for the museum. “It’s a big base,” said I. Michael Heyman, the former secretary of the Smithsonian Institution who sat with Mr. Fisher on the trust’s board. “But he’s a very strong-willed man.”

In an interview, Mr. Fisher indicated that the present site was the only one he would consider, calling it “a major location for a major building that we intend to build.” He added, “I don’t want to be stuck in a corner someplace with the collection we have and the investment we’re making.”

Mr. Fisher is no shrinking violet: a major Republican contributor who also donates generously to local Democrats, he has used his clout to subsidize causes including a ballot measure last year supporting more parking spaces downtown that ran counter to the city’s policy fostering public transportation. (The measure was soundly defeated)

Aaron Peskin, a city supervisor who has often crossed swords with Mr. Fisher, said: “Building relationships with the community is not his M.O. He suffers from what billionaires suffer from — they think they can have everything they want and the public be damned.”

Richard Gluckman, Mr. Fisher’s architect, describes the museum as a public gesture in the grand tradition of the City Beautiful movement of the late 19th century, in which museums and other civic buildings were located in parklike settings.

Mr. Gluckman, the art world’s favorite architect of minimalist spaces, designed A-list galleries for Larry Gagosian and Mary Boone as well as the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh and an addition to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. “Buildings should be of their time,” he said. “To do a historic pastiche of what an Army engineer would do would be disrespectful.”

Toby Rosenblatt, a former president of the city planning commission and the original board chairman of the trust, anticipates that the museum, which he supports, will be “well massaged and modified” during public review. “It’s always been a place that’s kept moving,” he said of the Presidio. “That’s its history.”

But history on this contentious ground is prone to shifting perspectives. “The Presidio is not a San Francisco park or a subdivision to be cluttered with development,” said Boyd De Larios, 64, a descendant of the Spanish Portola and Anza expeditions, discoverers of San Francisco Bay. “It is a place with a rich history which needs to be revealed further, not submerged in vanity projects.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

CAMP revealed: Fisher Delivers Design

CURBED SF (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/12/04/camp_revealed_fisher_delivers_design.php)
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
by Sarah Hromack

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/4Dec07_CAMP.jpg

Don Fisher has revealed a tentative design for his Presidio pet project, CAMP.
(Which means, sadly, that we'll lay off the Whitney Museum Photoshoppage (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/11/30/face_off_presidio_preservationists_challenge_camp. php)
for the moment). Starchitects Gluckman Mayner Architects have envisioned a
modernist mass designed with both the art and the building's surroundings in
mind; glass walls, for instance, will allow for a clear view of the work installed
inside. Mind you, Gluckman Manyner face stiff competition (note dry humor)
from website-less Bogatay Architects, designers of the history museum that
Fisher's opponents insist belong on the site. At last night's public hearing on
the subject — over 200 were in attendance — Fisher honed in our city's love
of the green, offering a final "value" add in the form of a $10M donation
toward the $45M needed to green the grounds surrounding his building.
Clever man. Back to the subject at hand: Gluckman Mayner, yeah or nay?

· Proposed Presidio museum would be modern addition to historic military site (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/04/MNCSTNE54.DTL) [Chron]
· Gluckman Mayner Architects (http://www.gluckmanmayner.com/) [website]
· Face Off: Presidio Preservationists Challenge CAMP (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/11/30/face_off_presidio_preservationists_challenge_camp. php) [Curbed SF]

[top image courtesy Gluckman Mayner Architects; bottom image courtesy Bogatay Architects; both images courtesy the San Francisco Chronicle]

***

Shocker: Don Fisher Wins CAMP Go-Ahead

CURBED SF (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/01/30/shocker_don_fisher_wins_camp_goahead.php)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
by Sarah Hromack

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/30Jan08_CAMP.jpg

Don Fisher has effectively paid his way into the Presidio Trust, and nobody's
even pretending otherwise: today's Chron reports that Fisher's plans were
chosen over those of the Presidio Historical Society, citing a lack of funding
as one of the latter's downfalls. Fisher, on the other hand, will personally fork
over funding for lease of the land and construction of the Gluckman Mayner-
designed Contemporary Art Museum of the Presidio (CAMP).

As a means of staving off protesters consolation prize to the losing party, no
doubt, the Presidio Trust will also set aside $5M to develop a "history and
visitors center" at the Presidio's Main Post.

Special bonus feature: Don n' Doris will also kick in $10M in pocket change
so that the Presidio's asphalt Parade Ground may be replaced by lawn and a
"promenade." Please excuse us while we dig out our debutante gown and
drown ourselves in sweet tea.

· Presidio Trust to enter talks with Gap founder Fisher for museum in the park (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/30/BABIUP0CQ.DTL&feed=rss.news) [SF Gate]
· Underdog Presidio Preservationists Make Bid for Endangered List (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/01/09/underdog_presidio_preservationists_make_bid_for_en dangered_list.php) [Curbed SF]
· The Old School Despises CAMP Design, Lacks Fear (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/12/18/the_old_school_despises_camp_design_lacks_fear.php ) [Curbed SF]
· Balls to Bowling: Another Presidio Protest (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/12/10/balls_to_bowling_another_presidio_protest.php) [Curbed SF]

[lofter1]

Gluckman Mayner Refines "Stupid Boxes"
for CAMP Design

CURBED SF (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/03/19/gluckman_mayner_refines_stupid_boxes_for_camp_desi gn.php)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
by Jimmy Stamp

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/18March_GLUCKMAN.jpg

Since architecture firm Gluckman Mayner first debuted the renderings,
CAMP, Gap founder Donald Fisher's pet museum project, has stirred
controversy (yes, controversy) here in San Francisco. Some are opposed to
replacing the existing bowling alley with a billionaire's art collection, while
others are insulted by the stark structure, while even those who support the
modern museum eloquently refer to the design as "boring" or a collection of
"stupid boxes." "We aren't getting our message out right, and part of the
issue is the images," said architect Richard Gluckman, who spent this past
week here in the city. "People complain the building looks cold and white and
stark. In those images, it does." Gluckman assures that certain design
nuances weren't visible in previous renderings, and promises that new
drawings showing off some of the inevitable design "tweaks" will be revealed
next month, hopefully communicating the idea of the building a little better.
Will the naysayers convert? Are we in San Francisco?

· Architect waxes poetic with Presidio museum (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/17/DDOHVJA7E.DTL) [SF Gate]
· The Old School Despises CAMP Design, Lacks Fear (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/12/18/the_old_school_despises_camp_design_lacks_fear.php ) [Curbed SF]

[lofter1]

Gluckman Mayner Architects (http://www.gluckmanmayner.com/)

Projects > Museums > Contemporary Art Museum Presidio

This proposed 100,000-square-foot building, along with a the renovation of a
nearby historic barracks and surrounding outdoor spaces, will be home to a
new contemporary art museum sited in a national park. The design features a
two-story structure with a partial basement and underground parking, taking
advantage of the site's topography and reducing the perceived size by
embedding the building into the slope. Sunken and walled courtyards blur the
museum's boundaries and further integrate it into the landscape. Exterior
circulation paths are reinforced by the building's fenestration. Vertical
movement through the building culminates at a rooftop terrace that overlooks
the surrounding park, San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge beyond.

[lofter1]

NEW SAN FRANCISCO ART MUSEUM
to help spark Presidio rejuvenation

San Francisco Sentinel (http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=7674)
December 4, 2007

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/museum-1.jpg
Doris and Donald Fisher are proposing to build the Contemporary Art Museum
at the Presidio (CAMP), a major new cultural institution to be located in one of
San Francisco’s most breathtakingly beautiful places. The museum is being
designed by Richard Gluckman, Principal of Gluckman Mayner Architects.

Doris and Donald Fisher are proposing to build the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio (CAMP), a major new cultural institution to be located in one of San Francisco’s most breathtakingly beautiful places.

The museum is being designed by Richard Gluckman, Principal of Gluckman Mayner Architects.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/museum-2.jpg
Doris and Donald Fisher Monday unveiled an elegant conceptual design for
the proposed Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio (CAMP), which will
house the Fisher’s breathtaking collection of modern art and significant art
education programs for the public.

The graceful, light-filled building is envisioned by Gluckman Mayner Architects as a contemporary response to the scale, material and topography of the Presidio’s Main Post that will complement the surrounding historic buildings and landscape.

“Gluckman Mayner created a design that perfectly blends the building’s two key functions – housing a major contemporary art institution and complementing the existing historical buildings at the Presidio,” Mr. Fisher said.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/don-and-doris-fisher.jpg
Don and Doris Fisher

“San Francisco is a Mecca for the performing and visual arts and CAMP will enhance the city’s reputation as one of the world’s foremost cultural destinations.”

The Fishers are proposing a museum with 55,000 sq. ft. of gallery space, which will allow the public to not only view the Fisher’s own collection of more than 1,000 masterworks but to also view traveling shows and exhibitions of other public and private collections.

The structure itself will be built of masonry and glass, materials inspired by the colors and feeling that define the Presidio’s Main Post. The proposed site just south of the Main Parade Ground is today a seven-acre parking lot.

Visitors will be able to see into the museum as they approach from the north and east, the glass walls blurring the boundary between inside and out. People inside the museum will enjoy spectacular views of the city, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the San Francisco Bay.

“CAMP represents a unique opportunity to site contemporary art at the heart of the Presidio’s cultural landscape,” said architect Richard Gluckman, FAIA, Principal of Gluckman Mayner Architects.

“A museum today is a forum for civic engagement – one that stimulates social activity and cultural development. Museums are inclusive rather than exclusive. Our goal is to create a venue that preserves, educates, and presents great art of our time in a dynamic facility reflective of its time.”

In addition to the new museum building, the project includes the renovation of a nearby barracks, Building 101, which will house the museum’s bookstore and vigorous public education programs, which will include a very important photography studio, ceramics studio and painting and drawing classes.

Normally a museum exhibition space is less than 25 percent of the building’s total. The rest is taken up by offices, storage, restaurants, bookstores, etc.

By renovating and using Building 101 – which has stood empty for more than 20 years – CAMP will be able to dedicate a significant portion of its total space to education programs for youth, seniors and students of the arts.

The new museum itself is envisioned as a two-story building with a partial basement and a 100-vehicle underground parking garage. The structure will be partially embedded into the slope behind the museum, reducing its perceived size by taking advantage of the surrounding topography.

“We are extremely proud of this project,” Mrs. Fisher said. “And we are thrilled to have the chance to give something back to the city that we love.”

To help ensure that the new museum is environmentally sustainable, CAMP will be constructed using “green” design techniques and building materials to reduce energy and water consumption to the greatest degree possible.

Also, CAMP will encourage its staff and visitors to use public transit, bicycles and other alternative forms of transportation to minimize automobile trips.

The Fishers started collecting modern and contemporary art more than 30 years ago. They have acquired works in depth from artists they admire and can show an entire span of an artist’s career, something few collections, public or private, are able to do.

Doris and Donald, who together founded Gap, Inc., in 1969, have cultivated a life-long passion for modern and contemporary art. The family privately displays much of their collection at the Gap headquarters in San Francisco.

Occasionally some of the art is displayed at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where Mr. Fisher serves as an officer on the board of trustees. He is a former member of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors.

The Fisher Collection includes more than 1,000 works of art by artists such as Gerhard Richter, Richard Serra, Alexander Calder, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Diebenkorn, Cy Twombly, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, Chuck Close, Willem DeKooning, Brice Marden, Agnes Martin, Anselm Kiefer and numerous other leading artists.

The Main Post, including the Parade Ground, is the focus of an extensive, multi-year revitalization effort by the Presidio Trust, the federal agency responsible for the preservation, enhancement, and sustainability of the Presidio.

[hey19932]

535 mission is about to begin construction downtown:

http://www.greenbuild.com/projects/images/535mission_rev.jpg

And here is a north mission bay webcam, It shows the construction of avalon at mission bay 3 ( www.avalonatmissionbayiii.com ) all the buildings you can see in the webcam have been built in the last 2 years:

http://oxblue.com/pro/open/?webPath=avalonbay/amb/

[lofter1]

A Building That Blooms and Grows,
Balancing Nature and Civilization

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/arts/acadslide2.jpg
Photo: Tim Griffith

NY TIMES (http://nytimes.com/2008/09/24/arts/design/24acad.html?8dpc)
By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
September 24, 2008

Architecture Review

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/arts/acadslide1.jpg

SAN FRANCISCO — Not all architects embrace the idea of evolution. Some, fixated on the 20th-century notion of the avant-garde, view their work as a divine revelation, as if history began with them. Others pine for the Middle Ages.

But if you want reaffirmation that human history is an upward spiral rather than a descent into darkness, head to the new California Academy of Sciences, in Golden Gate Park, which opens on Saturday. Designed by the Italian architect Renzo Piano on the site of the academy’s demolished home, the building has a steel frame that rests amid the verdant flora like a delicate piece of fine embroidery. Capped by a stupendous floating green roof of undulating mounds of plants, it embodies the academy’s philosophy that humanity is only one part of an endlessly complex universal system.

This building’s greatness as architecture, however, is rooted in a cultural history that stretches back through Modernism to Classical Greece. It is a comforting reminder of the civilizing function of great art in a barbaric age.

The academy building is the last in a series of ambitious projects to be conceived in and around the park’s Music Concourse since the devastating 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Herzog & de Meuron’s mesmerizing de Young Museum, enclosed in perforated copper, opened three years ago. Scaffolding is to come down at the concourse’s neo-Classical band shell this week after a loving restoration.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/arts/acadslide5.jpg

Glimpsed through the concourse’s grove of sycamores, the science academy gives the impression of weightlessness. A row of steel columns soaring 36 feet high along the facade lends the building a classical air; the sense of lightness is accentuated by a wafer-thin canopy above that creates the illusion that the roof is only millimeters thick. It’s as if a section of the park carpeted in native wildflowers and beach strawberries had been lifted off the ground and suspended in midair.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/arts/acadslide8.jpg

The idea is to create a balance between public and private, inside and out, the Cartesian order of the mind and the unruly world of nature. A glass lobby allows you to gaze straight through the building to the park on the other side. Other views open into exhibition spaces with their own microclimates. The entire building serves as a sort of specimen case, a framework for pondering the natural world while straining to disturb it as little as possible.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/arts/acadslide4.jpg

Mr. Piano’s building is also a blazingly uncynical embrace of the Enlightenment values of truth and reason. Its Classical symmetry — the axial geometry, the columns framing a central entry — taps into a lineage that runs back to Mies van der Rohe’s 1968 Neue Nationalgalerie and Schinkel’s 1828 Altes Museum in Berlin and even further, to the Parthenon.

Just as Mies’s glass-and-steel museum reworked Classical precedents, Mr. Piano’s design invokes Mies’s model, though with a sensitivity that makes the muscularity of the 1968 museum look old-fashioned. The roof of the academy’s lobby, supported by a gossamerlike web of cables, swells upward as if the entire room were breathing. Views open up to the landscape on all four sides, momentarily situating you both within the building and in the bigger world outside. A narrow row of clerestory windows lines the top of the lobby. One of the building’s many environmental features, these windows let warm air escape and create a gentle breeze that reinforces the connection to the natural setting.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/arts/acadslide3.jpg

From here you can proceed into the exhibition halls, delving deeper into the universe’s secrets. Two enormous 90-foot-tall spheres — one housing a planetarium, the other a rain forest — beckon from either side of the lobby. They are the most solid forms in the building, yet seem to hover in the space. The base of the p