View Single Post
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2010, 8:43 AM
pawelsf's Avatar
pawelsf pawelsf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
I'm not insisting anything. I'm simply saying that small streetscape buildings are important too. You may not think so, but these in particular don't belong to you do they? In the absence of the ability to clear the superblock and create some 'tower with a plaza out front', the architects have had to be extremely creative in their integration. And I think they've done it quite interestingly.

I'm not in favor of preservation for preservation's sake. And as an architect, I've certainly had my fair share of arguments won and lost on the subject.

I stand by my statement that these small 'leftovers' ,if you will, can create something accidentally wonderful. 50 years from now, people will look at the block and say 'what an interesting juxtaposition'. It's organic city development at its finest.
Oh, but I didn’t say small streetscape buildings are unimportant! Please don’t misconstrue me there. I happen to love smaller buildings as well. I am just being realistic enough to conceed that there ought to be qualifications to preservation, so as to avoid being guilty of preservation for the sake of preservation – something I think San Francisco is notoriously guilty of (think North Beach library). I am only talking about this particular project’s site with respect to the future neigborhood of the city’s tallest towers. The two tiny buildings will simply not allow a tall tower on that prime, prime, prime corner lot to be built.

Besides, there’s already a building set up exactly like what you are arguing for, across the street from the site (555 Mission and Salt House building)! That Salt House building is already there to help people put things in scale. How many more of that setup do you want within a distance of one stoplight to the next?

Also, please don’t make a tower+plaza combo such an undesirable thing. The new towers a stone’s throw away from the site are not dead, sterile as you demonize the combo to be. JP Morgan Chase’s plaza has a zen-like atmosphere going on, and it’s dynamic sculpture is very interesting, while the rustling little bamboo forest is very refreshing to the senses. 555 Mission’s plaza is green, hip with an interesting and colorful artpiece. I think you are stuck with the notion that tower+plaza combo being boring/sterile the way they were in 70’s/80’s/90’s ( as in the case of BoA, US Bank, Chevron, One Embarcadero etc).

Fortunately, the current and future towers are more environment and pedestrian-friendly and overall much more pleasing to the eyes. Glassy towers with airy public lobbies are being designed like 125 2nd St and the future tower across Millennium to name a few. And these exciting, newer designs can be had at that very prime, prime, prime corner location if only those two small ugly buildings would go.

Last edited by pawelsf; Oct 9, 2010 at 8:53 AM.