For San Francisco democracy, the skyline’s the limit

[M II A II R II K]

For San Francisco democracy, the skyline’s the limit


10/30/11

By: Ken Garcia



Read More: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011...kyline-s-limit

San Francisco can be magical, but it’s rarely majestic. The City’s landscape has been impacted less by architectural design than neighborhood activism. So in a place where small changes are fought with searing intensity, it’s hardly news that a big idea would generate instant reaction. And that would certainly describe the response to a plan to erect the tallest building in San Francisco’s history as the focal point of its proposed transit hub. The environmental analysis of the plan to build the 1,070-foot-high Transbay Tower at First and Mission streets had barely been issued before critics sounded off, though not for reasons aesthetic or conceptual. It’s about public access to sunlight in parks, the fight over the sky in skyscraper.

It’s the kind of hyperbole that has kept San Francisco in the architectural backwater for decades. The changes created by one tower over some of The City’s downtown parks would be so small as to hardly be noticed. It is true that Union Square would be covered in shade at times, the times being literally several minutes. Is that a reason to stop The City from moving forward into the new millennium? Maybe if you tan in Portsmouth Square on winter mornings. But still, your lot is small. The problem with San Francisco’s skyline is that it’s been shaped by politics as much as sensible urban planning. It’s the reason why The City has so few beautiful new buildings and even fewer signature ones.

The Transamerica Pyramid, which I have always liked, would have been a spectacular structure if the original design had been approved that would have included at least 10 more stories, allowing it to be a slimmer, more stately version of its more squat self. The Bank of America building has its moments, usually when it’s reflecting gold light off its deeply bronzed skin, a noble attempt at a visual beacon. Yet the aspirations for both fell short and not much has been added in the decades in between. And the reason is that great architecture is not achieved by a neighborhood voice vote.

No less an expert than the man who designed the Bank of America building told me so some years back, an internationally acclaimed architect who fell in love with San Francisco but came to the conclusion that it was a great city “without any great buildings.” “One of the problems with San Francisco — at least architecturally — is that it’s a tremendously democratic city,” Marc Goldstein told me. “And one of the reasons there’s so much mediocre architecture is that there’s so much mediocre opinion.”

.....