Quote:
Originally Posted by briankendall
Here are some of my observations.
SOM PRESENTATION: The clear winner was SOM. Their design was the best for a number of reasons.
1.) THE PRESENTATION overall was the clearest and most concise. Craig Hartman was really well spoken. The group had by far the best graphics and gave the most detail about the design overall. They went into detail about how it was a Platinum LEED, the green building materials, how it would react in an earthquake, what the uses were in the building, etc.
2. THE DESIGN of the tower was superb. I loved that the tower was a reference to the Eiffel Tower as they mentioned. This tapering feature gave the tower the strongest presence. The building felt like a true monument. The criss-cross design of both the tower and station was wonderful and elegant and was more complex and much more statisfying that Pelli's simpler design. I love the 120' base of the building with the passthrough that reminded me of the tall square elegance of La Defense. The 90'? tall graphics from MOMA that would be projected on the sides and top of the space was totally ingenious and very dramatic. When they put up the presentations in the North Light Court people were clearly gravitating to this design far more than the others. I also loved that the Sutro Library was going in the building(currently its near Stonestown... its a CA state library that has amazing genealogical information)
3. THE HEIGHT of the building was greater than the others. I asked the presenters and they confirmed it was 1200' to roof and 175' more for the crown for a total of 1375'. The model of the tower absolutely made it look like it was 1,600' though. It was 2.5 times taller that The Millenium tower of 645'. The tower looked incredibly tall. I was surprised that it was only 1,375' because at that height it was clearly not to scale with the surrounding buildings of the model (maybe it really is 1,600' and it will grow?!) The architects also told me the building had 92 floors. There were 42 floors of housing at the top and on the very top were a few floors of public space that would have a cafe or restaurant (I asked the architect) and the upper floors were event spaces that would be operated by the hotel. The only thing I didn't like was that the narrow side of the tower was the side that faced the bay. The wider part faced north and south. But I loved how the tower looked different at different angles with twists and turns.
PELLI PRESENTATION:
The Pelli presentation was a clear second place. Unfortantely like the Rogers presentation it was difficult to hear them and it was a bit disjointed. They spent at least 65% of the presentation talking about the damn 5 acre park on top of the transit center. I loved the park and the design especially the openings that looked down on the inside and were ringed by Canary Island palms. Brilliant design although very few San Francisco roof gardens get used that much and this one is at least a few floors above the street level. I just don't see it as being utilized that much especially in this location (as opposed to Yerba Buena Gardens which feels very accessable and is well used.)
They focused on the park so much that Mr. Pelli only spoke about the tower for 2 minutes. And they didn't spend too much time talking about the functions and design of the interiors of the transit center too. It was very strange and lame that they didn't time their presentation ahead of time. The tower design was nice but boring and just like in the prestation where it was only spoken about for 2 minutes the tower felt like an after thought. The tower seemed to be the shortest (1,100'?) which I did not like at all. I am curious what the height is. The tower also seemed too similiar to Mr. Pelli's other grid-like tower across the street on Mission, which I love but why reference it... come up with something new! It was really dissappointing that like the Rogers tower it didn't excite me at all... not like SOM tower did which actually gave me goose bumps... yes I admit it.
ROGERS PRESENTATION
The Rogers presentation like the Pelli one was disjointed. Too many presenters and I could barely understand Rogers. The design didn't fit in with the aesthetics of San Francisco at all. The only thing I liked about the tower was how it was in designed with three, clear sections which was dramatic and unusual but the red "scaffolding" on the tower with all the exposed ductwork and exterior elevators is a really outdated concept even it was a reference to the Golden Gate Bridge (or Sutro Tower! at the worst) which was nice but the tower should not have to reference anything... it should have been a strong design unlike anything else like the the SOM tower was. It wasn't elegant or iconic. It did not inspire. Also, he didn't seem to have a clear understanding that this thing would really age physically in our damp foggy weather (exposed elevators on the outside...come on!) And at probably 1,100' to the roof an 1,286' to the top it was too short if the 1,200 foot Renzo towers get built. I wanted it to be 300' taller.
|
I'm with you on this one Brian, great job breaking it down. I also thought that SOM's tower was way taller than what they said. I was banking on at least 1500' and easily over 100 floors. Even though its likely the specifics will change over the next few months, I hope they change for the taller dirrection. Rogers proposal for the external elevators did not call my attention too much. I do however think the tower should have at least one panoramic elevator (like the one featured on the Glass Tower in the movie "The Towering Inferno"). A tower as beautiful as SOM's deserves to be at least 1500'.
Is it possible that the height given does not take into account the tower's open base, in which the actual height would be closer to 1475'-1500' or so? Also, I noted some tall building next to the SOM model, that looked like they were in the location of Piano's proposed towers. They certainly did not look like 1200' tall, but more like 800' - 900'.